Search for: "U. S. v. Mays" Results 2181 - 2200 of 7,529
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 May 2019, 4:28 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
  In our world, only a legal malpractice claim after the deal is more relevant. 83 Willow, LLC v Apollo 2019 NY Slip Op 31203(U)  May 2, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 151266/2015 Judge: Barbara Jaffe is the story of a client, an attorney and a big problem. [read post]
8 May 2019, 10:30 am by Matthew Scott Johnson
Camp is quoted in the following article: Vidya Kauri, Row Over Trump’s Tax Returns May Hinge On Dems’ Intent, 2019 LAW360 115-174 (2019). [read post]
8 May 2019, 3:55 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Well, Tatintsian v Pryor Cashman LLP  2018 NY Slip Op 33152(U)  December 10, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County  Docket Number: 152022/2017  Judge: David Benjamin Cohen describes the current state of affairs. [read post]
7 May 2019, 2:27 pm by Ad Law Defense
  That was one of the questions posed to a Utah jury in Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. [read post]
1 May 2019, 7:51 am
Claimants will be allowed to prove that:(i) SPDC was involved in bribing the witnesses [U], [V], [II], [YY], [KK], [LL], [MM] and [NN] because [a.] [read post]
1 May 2019, 7:00 am by Phillips & Associates
A state court affirmed the order in Automatic Meter Reading Corp. v New York City (“AMRC”), 2019 NY Slip Op 50464(U) (N.Y. [read post]
1 May 2019, 4:31 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
In opposition, Con Edison argues that Armienti’ s representation of Con Edison for purposes of the continuous representation doctrine continued until the execution of their Consent to Change Attorneys on April 13, 2015 (Complaint, In a given case, the Consent to Change Attorney may reflect the erid date of an attorneyclient relationship, in the absence of other evidence that establishes an earlier date (see Louzoun v. [read post]
30 Apr 2019, 5:19 am by Samuel Bray
Field, Abstention in Constitutional Cases: The Scope of the Pullman Abstention Doctrine, 122 U. [read post]
23 Apr 2019, 1:41 pm by Eric Dama
Earlier this week, however, the United States Supreme Court agreed to consider a case that may significantly limit an employer’s ability to treat employees differently based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. [read post]