Search for: "United States v. Arthur Andersen & Co." Results 1 - 20 of 31
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 May 2019, 9:27 am by MOTP
Rather, he stated that the factors relevant to his attorney's fees were (1) the amount in controversy, (2) the complexity of the case, and (3) his knowledge and experience—three of the eight factors set out in Arthur Andersen & Co. v. [read post]
26 Apr 2019, 9:53 am by MOTP
Rather, he stated that the factors relevant to his attorney's fees were (1) the amount in controversy, (2) the complexity of the case, and (3) his knowledge and experience—three of the eight factors set out in Arthur Andersen & Co. v. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 7:06 pm by MOTP
The arbitrator agreed with Rain & Hail that Jody James did not "timely present[] notice of its claim in accordance with the provisions of the crop insurance policy" and, further, "did not state a presentable loss" because crops from performing and non-performing farm units were commingled. [read post]
29 Jan 2018, 11:28 pm by Kevin LaCroix
Some 40 or so years later, Chairman Clayton’s regeneration of Judge Sporkin’s gatekeeper liability lays the regulatory foundation for a successful and vast SEC ICO assault, which will leave some ICO lawyers looking over their shoulders, and others perhaps dashing for cover. 1970s:  SEC v. [read post]
1 Nov 2016, 3:49 am by Edith Roberts
First up is State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. [read post]
22 Feb 2016, 4:36 pm by Kevin LaCroix
However, interest in purchasing this type of insurance did not develop until 1939, when in New York Dock Co. v. [read post]
21 May 2011, 10:45 pm
" Arthur Andersen LLP v. [read post]
8 Sep 2010, 6:27 am by Russell Beck
Arthur Andersen LLP, closing a loophole that had been opened and expanded by the United States District Courts in California, which had allowed the enforcement of noncompetes in certain circumstances. [read post]
14 Jan 2010, 10:01 pm by Tom
United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). [read post]