Search for: "Rosenblatt v. Rosenblatt"
Results 1 - 20
of 183
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Mar 2024, 11:30 am
Likewise, Rosenblatt v. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 4:54 pm
Mazer v. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 2:59 pm
Graham v. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 10:59 am
Rosenblatt: Already in injunctive relief? [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 7:50 am
But Urban Outfitters v. [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 2:56 pm
Betsy Rosenblatt: Taxonomy of confusion—source v. sponsorship or approval. [read post]
11 Dec 2023, 9:05 pm
Kahn v. [read post]
8 Dec 2023, 9:30 pm
Rosenblatt, with John P. [read post]
18 Aug 2023, 6:13 am
" Likewise, Rosenblatt v. [read post]
4 Aug 2023, 12:57 pm
Individual interest v. public interest opposed in those cases and in Kirtsaeng. [read post]
4 Aug 2023, 8:08 am
Betsy Rosenblatt: one story seems to be that innovation-forcing laws can inhibit that. [read post]
3 Aug 2023, 3:11 pm
Betsy Rosenblatt: hinging on experts is wealth-dependent; is there any way to get rid of that reliance? [read post]
3 Aug 2023, 1:03 pm
Sony v. [read post]
3 Aug 2023, 11:05 am
Hughes: could compare cases where they narrow the claim of the TM registration v. narrow the claim of the patent—Maker’s Mark case where they have a registration for a wax seal but claim only red. [read post]
3 Jul 2023, 10:49 pm
S. 29, 62 (1971) (Harlan, J., dissenting); id., at 78 (Marshall, J., dissenting); Rosenblatt v. [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 5:19 am
The amended complaint further alleges that the defendants’ negligence proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages in that their delays in prosecuting the underlying action prevented him from being able to collect on the judgment that was eventually entered against the contractor (see Jean-Paul v Rosenblatt, 208 AD3d at 653; Aristakesian v Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., 165 AD3d 1023, 1024; Oberkirch v… [read post]
24 May 2023, 6:37 am
Part of Just Security’s work on accountability and election law. [read post]
14 May 2023, 7:07 pm
(Yu v. [read post]
20 Apr 2023, 11:00 am
Williams v. [read post]
17 Apr 2023, 5:20 am
The plaintiff’s general contentions that but for the defendant’s negligence, she “would have litigated her claims against the Board, or in the alternative, procured a settlement agreement with better terms of compensation and otherwise far more beneficial” are speculative and, as such, cannot serve as a basis for a legal malpractice claim (see Jean-Paul v Rosenblatt, 208 AD3d at 653; Katsoris v Bodnar & Milone, LLP, 186 AD3d at 1506). [read post]
