Search for: "U. S. v. King" Results 1 - 20 of 368
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Sep 2020, 6:00 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
  In Ofman v Tenenbaum Berger & Shivers LLP  2020 NY Slip Op 32828(U)  July 23, 2020 Supreme Court, Kings County  Docket Number: 524482/2019  Judge: Richard Velasquez,  Plaintiff alleged that had the attorney been quicker, the defendant would not have been able to leave the US and the judgment would have been collectible. [read post]
13 Jul 2020, 4:51 am by Peter Mahler
Realty Associates LLC v Blumberg, 2020 NY Slip Op 32200(U) [Sup Ct NY County July 7, 2020]  The aptly named S.O.S. [read post]
2 Jul 2020, 9:26 am by Aditi Shah
To support this point, Alito compared Thuraissigiam’s requested relief to the type of relief the Supreme Court previously rejected in a 2008 case Munaf v. [read post]
1 Jul 2020, 5:16 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
  Wong v Yeung-Ha  2020 NY Slip Op 31832(U)  June 11, 2020 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 505276/18,   Judge: Karen B. [read post]
8 Jun 2020, 5:55 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“Proximate cause requires a showing that ‘but for’ the attorney’s negligence, the plaintiff would . . . not have sustained any ascertainable damages” (Barbara King Family Trust v Voluto Ventures LLC, 46 AD3d 423, 424 [1st Dept 2007]). [read post]
2 Jun 2020, 3:28 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Manno v Hayes Law Practice, PLLC  2020 NY Slip Op 31228(U)  May 6, 2020  Supreme Court, Kings County  Docket Number: Index No. 520104/16  Judge: Edgar G. [read post]
29 May 2020, 10:45 am by Brian Schaller
In Duran, the Court clarified that its decision in King didn't invalidate the FCC's previous broad definition of autodialer (in the FCC's 2015 Order). [read post]
11 May 2020, 5:41 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
  in Postiglione v Sacks & Sacks, LLP  2020 NY Slip Op 31164(U) April 17, 2020 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 513779/2019 Judge: Edgar G. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]