Search for: "*resnick v. U. S"
Results 1 - 20
of 23
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 May 2024, 6:31 am
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Muldrow v. [read post]
1 Apr 2024, 6:44 am
Supreme Court recently ruled in Murray v. [read post]
Two Pending Cases Before the U.S. Supreme Court Could Substantially Impact New Jersey Employment Law
2 Feb 2024, 8:05 am
Chevron Deference The Supreme Court’s 1984 decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. [read post]
12 Jan 2024, 4:50 am
Rothstein v Krane LLP 2024 NY Slip Op 30016(U) January 3, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 157694/2017 Judge: Gerald Lebovits is that very rare species of summary judgment in a legal malpractice case in favor of plaintiff. [read post]
27 Jul 2023, 6:36 am
The Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Bostock v. [read post]
5 Jul 2023, 10:19 am
Unfortunately, the court ruled in the employer’s favor in Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Jun 2023, 12:37 pm
The court ruled in the employee’s favor in Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. [read post]
18 May 2023, 6:09 am
The case before the Supreme Court, Murray v. [read post]
3 May 2023, 1:45 pm
Clinton v. [read post]
2 Mar 2021, 3:45 pm
The 1977 decision Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Jul 2020, 7:48 am
In Tinker v. [read post]
22 Jun 2020, 11:22 am
It has included sexual harassment since the Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Meritor Savings Bank v. [read post]
12 Nov 2019, 4:47 am
Condon Resnick, LLP, 90 A.D.3d 809, 812 (2d Dept. 2011). [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 7:11 am
Supreme Court recently ruled in Fort Bend County v. [read post]
6 Aug 2019, 6:52 am
Oncale v. [read post]
5 Jul 2019, 7:49 am
The knowledgeable and experienced employment lawyers at the Resnick Law Group advocate for the rights of workers in New Jersey and New York. [read post]
8 May 2019, 12:43 pm
A federal district court granted a preliminary injunction in Nevada, et al v. [read post]
19 May 2018, 2:38 pm
Bank N.A. v. [read post]
30 Mar 2018, 4:05 am
Andrew’s affidavit was sufficient to raise a question of fact as to whether the defendant engaged in a course of continuous representation intended to rectify or mitigate the initial act of alleged malpractice (see Melnick v Farrell, 128 AD3d 1371, 1372 [2015]; DeStaso v Condon Resnick, LLP, 90 AD3d 809, 812-813 [2011]; Gravel v Cicola, 297 AD2d 620, 621 [2002]). [read post]
11 Jul 2016, 8:09 am
Heffernan v. [read post]
