Search for: "Smith v. Fee" Results 81 - 100 of 1,432
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Dec 2007, 6:15 am
Smith Lumber v Decina, ___ Mich ___ (2007), the Michigan Supreme Court held that "To be awarded attorney fees as a 'prevailing party' under MCL 570.1118(2), the party must prevail on the lien foreclosure action. * * * The language of [the statute] does not permit recovery of attorney fees on the contract action merely because it was brought together with the lien foreclosure action. [read post]
13 Sep 2013, 11:03 am
 Which is what plaintiffs indeed request of the Ninth Circuit.But I also saw that the opinion was written by Judge Randy Smith. [read post]
6 Feb 2007, 5:22 pm
Because FRAP 4(a)(4) does give you more time to file your appeal if the other side files a motion for attorney's fees. [read post]
5 Apr 2007, 7:29 am
The NWI Times has a story today about the Court of Appeals ruling Tuesday in Herbert Smith, Jr. and Charles Zacek v. [read post]
15 Jan 2012, 8:27 pm by Simon Gibbs
The argument put forward by some claimant representatives was that explained in Smiths Dock v Edwards [2004] EWHC 1116 QB: “Mr Morgan QC submitted that because most wholly unsuccessful cases reach trial whilst most successful cases settle before trial, there is a disequilibrium that should result in higher success fees. [read post]
8 Apr 2015, 7:08 pm by Sme
Colvin (10th Cir., April  2, 2015) (affirming denial of social security benefits) Smith's Food and Drug v. [read post]