Works matching DE "MAINTENANCE %26 champerty"
1
- International Insolvency Review, 1997, v. 6, n. 3, p. 225, doi. 10.1002/iir.3940060305
- Article
2
- Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, 2004, v. 10, n. 1, p. 55
- Article
3
- William & Mary Law Review, 2015, v. 56, n. 3, p. 833
- Article
4
- William & Mary Law Review, 2012, v. 54, n. 2, p. 455
- Article
5
- Suffolk Transnational Law Review, 2017, v. 40, n. 2, p. 395
- Article
7
- UCLA Law Review, 2010, v. 58, n. 2, p. 571
- Article
8
- University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 2002, v. 150, n. 4, p. 1297, doi. 10.2307/3312998
- Article
9
- George Washington Law Review, 2024, v. 92, n. 3, p. 725
- Article
10
- Chicago-Kent Law Review, 2018, v. 93, n. 3, p. 631
- BEN-ISHAI, STEPHANIE;
- UZA, EMILY
- Article
11
- Journal of Corporation Law, 2016, v. 41, n. 4, p. 993
- Article
12
- Dispute Resolution Journal, 2015, v. 70, n. 2, p. 109
- Article
13
- FIU Law Review, 2020, v. 14, n. 1, p. 85, doi. 10.25148/lawrev.14.1.9
- Article
14
- University of Miami Law Review, 2017, v. 72, n. 1, p. 269
- Article
15
- LA+: Interdisciplinary Journal of Landscape Architecture, 2021, n. 14, p. 82
- Article
16
- Canadian Class Action Review / Revue Canadienne du Recours Collectif, 2018, v. 14, n. 2, p. 467
- Article
17
- Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 2014, p. 377
- Article
18
- Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 2020, v. 44, n. 2/3, p. 113
- CHAISSE, JULIEN;
- EKEN, CAN
- Article
19
- Modern Law Review, 1997, v. 60, n. 2, p. 286, doi. 10.1111/1468-2230.00080
- Article
20
- California Law Review, 1940, v. 28, n. 5, p. 587, doi. 10.2307/3477032
- Article
21
- California Law Review, 1935, v. 24, n. 1, p. 48, doi. 10.2307/3476484
- Article
22
- DePaul Law Review, 2011, v. 60, n. 2, p. 713
- Article
23
- DePaul Law Review, 2011, v. 60, n. 2, p. 695
- Article
24
- DePaul Law Review, 2011, v. 60, n. 2, p. 453
- Article
25
- Law & Contemporary Problems, 2010, v. 73, n. 4, p. 47
- Blackman, Jonathan I.;
- Mukhi, Rahul
- Article
26
- Brooklyn Law Review, 2021, v. 86, n. 2, p. 561
- Article
27
- Brooklyn Law Review, 2018, v. 83, n. 3, p. 1029
- Article
28
- Georgia Law Review, 2015, v. 49, n. 4, p. 1121
- Article
29
- Florida State University Law Review, 2016, v. 43, n. 3, p. 1043
- Article
30
- Minnesota Law Review, 2011, v. 95, n. 4, p. 1268
- Article
31
- Denver University Law Review, 2015, v. 92, n. 1, p. 95
- Article
32
- Arbitration International, 2020, v. 36, n. 2, p. 275, doi. 10.1093/arbint/aiaa021
- Article
33
- Arbitration International, 2018, v. 34, n. 4, p. 593, doi. 10.1093/arbint/aiy029
- Article
34
- American Business Law Journal, 1992, v. 30, n. 3, p. 485, doi. 10.1111/j.1744-1714.1992.tb00665.x
- Article
35
- DePaul Business & Commercial Law Journal, 2002, v. 1, n. 1, p. 85
- Article
36
- Law & Psychology Review, 2019, v. 43, p. 213
- Article
37
- University of San Francisco Law Review, 2015, v. 49, n. 2, p. 237
- Article
38
- Akron Law Review, 2010, v. 43, n. 3, p. 677
- Article
39
- Northern Kentucky Law Review, 2011, v. 38, n. 4, p. 673
- Article