Search for: "Short v. Hill" Results 201 - 220 of 965
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Apr 2009, 7:42 am
Like all metaphors, it is a lie; someone making a slippery-slope argument is not literally sliding down a hill. [read post]
27 Dec 2010, 9:06 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Co. v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 56 AD3d at 10; Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc., 10 AD3d at 271-272). [read post]
21 Jan 2022, 5:33 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Thus, plaintiff failed to show, as required to state a cause of action for legal malpractice, that but for defendants’ conduct he would have prevailed in the underlying action (see Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc., 10 AD3d 267, 272 [1st Dept 2004]). [read post]
24 Feb 2009, 7:05 am
Amanza Smith was working as asalesperson in a Beverly Hills boutique when a representative of L'Oreal approached her and asked if she would like to be a "hair model" at an upcoming show featuring L'Oreal products and a hair stylist. [read post]
16 Jul 2018, 3:28 am by Edith Roberts
” In an op-ed for The Hill, Julie Burkhart warns that “[t]he confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court will lead to a decision to overturn or gut the essence of Roe v. [read post]
5 Jan 2018, 10:13 am by David Post
" Trump responded to Wolff's reporting with a pair of cease-and-desist letters from his attorneys (Harder Mirell & Abrams of Beverly Hills CA) — one to Bannon and one to Wolff and his publisher (Henry Holt & Co.) [read post]
17 Nov 2018, 12:10 pm by Schachtman
“Then time will tell just who fellAnd who’s been left behind”                   Dylan, “Most Likely You Go Your Way” (1966)   When the Daubert case headed to the Supreme Court, it had 22 amicus briefs in tow. [read post]
6 Feb 2009, 6:04 am
County of Lubbock, 767 F.2d 153 (5th Cir. 1985), cert denied, 475 U.S. 1066 (1986); Hill v. [read post]
5 Dec 2018, 3:01 am by Walter Olson
” [John Kenneth Ross, IJ “Short Circuit” on Davis v. [read post]