"While the court of appeals acknowledged that West asked the arbitrator not to dissolve the corporation, it failed to identify and expressly consider modification and waiver as distinct issues associated with the relief the parties requested from the arbitrator. Consequently, the court of appeals did not comply with Rule 47.1."
December 26, 2005 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Texas Lawyer
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.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS