Franchise Lawyer in zip code 37421 | 1 Available
Harry Ray - Franchise Lawyer in zip code 37421
Ratings:
Avvo Rating:
Lawyers.com Rating:
Area of Practice: Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Corporate , Franchise , Health Care & Hospitalization, Intellectual Property , Labor , Mergers & Acquisitions, Taxation - State & Federal, Antitrust & Trade Law, Antitrust & Trade Law, Antitrust & Trade Law, Antitrust & Trade Law
Zip code: 37421, Chattanooga, Tennessee
Contact: Not Available
Ray Law Firm PLLC.
6150 Shallowford Rd Ste 105.
No Q&As yet near 37421 (Franchise)
Be the first to ask Lawbamba Community. Real Local lawyers answer.
Selecting a Franchise Attorney in 37421
Is the Franchise attorneys office in your own zipcode or locality?
Lawbamba helps you by showing the top best rated attorneys in Zipcode: 37421 for Franchise attorneys.
Once you browse through the list of top avvo and yelp reviewed attorneys in a selected zipcode you can also use the filters to sort by the lawyer ratings. The unique filters also allows you to change areas of practice and counties to provide a faster and wider search experience!
What are Lawbamba Avvo and Yelp Client Review Ratings in 37421
Lawbamba Client Review Ratings: Draws on Avvo and Yelp client reviews and comments and supplements the information available through Peer Review Ratings. Direct client reviews on a Franchise lawyer's qualities provides a unique another perspective and key information as you make your choice for legal services.
Having utilized your selected lawyers' services make sure you Franchise come back to review and rate the Franchise lawyer or the law firm you worked with for your case.
Who are the Top best Antitrust & Trade Regulation lawyers in zipcode 37421?
Harry Ray is among the top rated Antitrust & Trade Regulation lawyer in Chattanooga. The reviews and ratings are based on actual client feedback. The selected Chattanooga Antitrust & Trade Regulation lawyer may be able to address other General legal issues such as Antitrust & Trade Regulation and other legal issues listed below in Chattanooga,Tennessee.Corporate (130 available)
Franchise (5 available)
Intellectual Property (29 available)
Labor (98 available)
No Q&As yet near 37421 (Franchise)
Be the first to ask Lawbamba Community. Real Local lawyers answer.
Selecting a Franchise Attorney in 37421
Is the Franchise attorneys office in your own zipcode or locality?
Lawbamba helps you by showing the top best rated attorneys in Zipcode: 37421 for Franchise attorneys.
Once you browse through the list of top avvo and yelp reviewed attorneys in a selected zipcode you can also use the filters to sort by the lawyer ratings. The unique filters also allows you to change areas of practice and counties to provide a faster and wider search experience!
What are Lawbamba Avvo and Yelp Client Review Ratings in 37421
Lawbamba Client Review Ratings: Draws on Avvo and Yelp client reviews and comments and supplements the information available through Peer Review Ratings. Direct client reviews on a Franchise lawyer's qualities provides a unique another perspective and key information as you make your choice for legal services.
Having utilized your selected lawyers' services make sure you Franchise come back to review and rate the Franchise lawyer or the law firm you worked with for your case.
Explore more Franchise Lawyers in ZIP Codes Nearby 37421
Atlanta, Georgia (ZIP 30309) - 95.6 miles away
Gastonia, North Carolina (ZIP 28016) - 219.2 miles away
Charlotte, North Carolina (ZIP 28105) - 251.2 miles away
Cincinnati, Ohio (ZIP 45202) - 284.2 miles away
Cincinnati, Ohio (ZIP 45246) - 296.9 miles away
Dayton, Ohio (ZIP 45423) - 331.1 miles away
Columbus, Ohio (ZIP 43215) - 360.7 miles away
St. Louis, Missouri (ZIP 63102) - 373.4 miles away
St. Louis, Missouri (ZIP 63105) - 379.8 miles away
Mahomet, Illinois (ZIP 61853) - 400.8 miles away
Franchise Case examples in zip code 37421
Description: Legal issues related to the operation and regulation of automotive franchises and dealerships. Case Example: In Smith v. Franchise Owner (2020), the case involved disputes over dealership practices. Judgment: The court ruled on compliance with franchise regulations.