Search for: "Peters v. Peters"
Results 2301 - 2320
of 7,479
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Dec 2014, 6:00 am
See Peter Mayer Publishers, Inc. v. [read post]
8 May 2013, 9:00 am
BARNEY, TRUSTEE v. [read post]
7 May 2021, 9:30 pm
" (Senate Progressives v. [read post]
24 Dec 2013, 8:16 am
SANCHEZ v. [read post]
16 May 2023, 3:56 am
DBA Comptime Digital Printing v. [read post]
4 Feb 2014, 9:53 am
McCALLIE v. [read post]
12 Mar 2014, 8:12 am
Case Name: MICHAEL LEE COOPER v. [read post]
14 Jul 2020, 4:14 am
Consejo Regulador del Tequila, A.C. v. [read post]
4 Oct 2021, 4:00 am
Garnett & Mitchell Koppinger, Tandon v. [read post]
23 May 2023, 7:30 am
Rhoads 5th Senate District :Would provided for retroactive Tier V membership in the NY State and Local Employees' Retirement System to Daniel Miller S6343 by Andrew Gounardes 26th Senate District : Relates to the limitation of overtime compensation in final average salary calculations S6477 by Robert Jackson 31st Senate District : Provides home addresses of certain employees to employee organizations S6482A by John W. [read post]
18 May 2024, 9:01 am
Boulos v. [read post]
10 Dec 2015, 9:18 am
In Angelo v. [read post]
31 Jul 2016, 6:23 am
The case of Estate of Smith v. [read post]
5 Feb 2017, 2:21 pm
Silver v. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 9:17 am
Of relevance to a recent trade secret case, captioned Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Mar 2024, 3:54 am
Fischbarg, 9 NY3d at 377; see generally Eberhardt v G & J Contr., Inc., 188 AD3d 1653, 1654 [4th Dept 2020]; Peters v Peters, 101 AD3d 403, 403-404 [1st Dept 2012]). [read post]
23 Apr 2018, 7:16 am
None of this takes away from the excellent lawyering by Peter Stris to achieve this result for his client. [read post]
8 Nov 2024, 11:06 am
For a full discussion of why the tort has not developed in Australia, , I refer to David Rolph, ‘Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats (2001)’ in Paul Wragg and Peter Coe (eds), Landmark Cases in Privacy Law (Hart, 2023), 131. [read post]
19 May 2014, 3:29 pm
The criminal court observes at common law that the infant En ventre sa mere was recognized and a legal personality imputed to it as a rule of property for all purposes beneficial to it, but that imputation was regarded as a benevolent fiction granted in anticipation of the child's birth as held in Drobner v Peters. [read post]
28 Jul 2015, 9:01 pm
The Supreme Court case most closely on point is the 1991 ruling in Masson v. [read post]
