Search for: "Corrections Corp"
Results 1 - 20
of 4,630
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 May 2024, 4:58 pm
Corp. [read post]
25 May 2024, 8:23 am
“[P]arties presenting a paper to the USPTO are under a duty to review the information in the paper and correct any errors. [read post]
23 May 2024, 6:00 am
at 185, quoting Matter of Seymour v Rivera Appliances Corp., 28 NY2d 406, 409 [1971]). [read post]
23 May 2024, 6:00 am
at 185, quoting Matter of Seymour v Rivera Appliances Corp., 28 NY2d 406, 409 [1971]). [read post]
23 May 2024, 5:29 am
FedEx Corp. [read post]
22 May 2024, 1:33 pm
EAST COAST METAL STRUCTURES CORP., Appellee. 4th District. [read post]
21 May 2024, 9:45 am
LKQ Corp. v. [read post]
20 May 2024, 9:05 pm
Newport Steel Corp. and embraced by the Supreme Court in Blue Chip Stamps v. [read post]
15 May 2024, 10:00 am
Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012]), the custodian engineer's generalized testimony that she would regularly test the door and determine that it was functioning safely and properly, by itself and without any expert analysis, failed to establish, prima facie, defendant's entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Lugo v Belmont Blvd. [read post]
15 May 2024, 10:00 am
Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012]), the custodian engineer's generalized testimony that she would regularly test the door and determine that it was functioning safely and properly, by itself and without any expert analysis, failed to establish, prima facie, defendant's entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Lugo v Belmont Blvd. [read post]
15 May 2024, 7:41 am
Smith Corp., 521 U.S. 179, 191 (1997), citing Connors v. [read post]
13 May 2024, 7:36 am
X Corp. v. [read post]
11 May 2024, 7:42 am
Corp., 56 So.2d 515 (Fla.1952). [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
& Gas Corp., 183 AD3d 1207, 1209 [3d Dept 2020]; see also Executive [*4]Law § 809 [2] [b]; 9 NYCRR 572. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
& Gas Corp., 183 AD3d 1207, 1209 [3d Dept 2020]; see also Executive [*4]Law § 809 [2] [b]; 9 NYCRR 572. [read post]
10 May 2024, 6:00 am
Neither petitioner nor the court identified any "substantive law applicable to the parties' dispute" to support application of the doctrine of manifest disregard of law (Schiferle, 155 AD3d at 127; see Matter of Daesang Corp. v NutraSweet Co., 167 AD3d 1, 21 n 15 [1st Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 915 [2019]). [read post]
10 May 2024, 6:00 am
Neither petitioner nor the court identified any "substantive law applicable to the parties' dispute" to support application of the doctrine of manifest disregard of law (Schiferle, 155 AD3d at 127; see Matter of Daesang Corp. v NutraSweet Co., 167 AD3d 1, 21 n 15 [1st Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 915 [2019]). [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am
IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York2024 NY Slip Op 02369Decided on May 02, 2024Appellate Division, First DepartmentMoulton, J.Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Decided and Entered: May 02, 2024 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial DepartmentSallie Manzanet-DanielsPeter H. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am
IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York2024 NY Slip Op 02369Decided on May 02, 2024Appellate Division, First DepartmentMoulton, J.Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Decided and Entered: May 02, 2024 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial DepartmentSallie Manzanet-DanielsPeter H. [read post]
6 May 2024, 9:20 am
In February, I wrote about a Fourth Circuit decision in Doe v. [read post]