Featured Firms
Presented by BigVoodoo
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to submit "a jury question regarding UPS's right of control," admitting hearsay testimony and denying appellant the opportunity to voir dire a witness or to make an offer of proof, denying appellant's motion for a mistrial, admitting expert opinion testimony that was based on a "false assumption," and denying his motion for a new trial. The court affirms.
November 22, 2004 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Texas Lawyer
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS