Search for: "Davis v. Baxter" Results 1 - 20 of 56
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Nov 2019, 4:27 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The Emerson defendants and the Greenberg Traurig defendants established that this action was without any reasonable basis in law or fact and that the primary purpose in commencing this action was to harass them (see Baxter v Javier, 109 AD3d 493, 495; Zysk v Kaufman, Borgeest & Ryan, LLP, 53 AD3d 482, 483; Nyitray v New York Athletic Club in City of N.Y., 274 AD2d 326, 327; Matter of Entertainment Partners Group v Davis, 198… [read post]
29 Jan 2019, 9:08 am by John Elwood
United States, 17-6887, Baxter v. [read post]
20 Sep 2018, 4:16 pm by Brian Shiffrin
We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court for that purpose (see Davis, 153 AD3d at 1632).People v Herrod, 163 A.D.3d 1462, 1462-1463. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
Parke, Davis & Co., 256 F.3d 1013, 1021 (10th Cir. 2001) (wrong to “construe [a treater’s] ‘heeding’ an adequate warning to mean [s/he] would have given the warning”) (applying Oklahoma law); In re Diet Drug Litigation, 895 A.2d 480, 490-91 (N.J. [read post]