Search for: "SELLERS v. SELLERS"
Results 2361 - 2380
of 5,571
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Apr 2014, 11:54 am
Reviewing pertinent federal precedent, particularly SEC v. [read post]
26 Jan 2021, 1:54 pm
., Inc. v. [read post]
16 Mar 2021, 5:55 am
Apfel v. [read post]
2 Jun 2008, 11:36 am
* A new ruling in the V Secret v. [read post]
22 Apr 2015, 3:47 pm
In the case of Reckis v. [read post]
14 Oct 2008, 9:23 am
Today the Supreme Court hears oral argument in Pearson v. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 8:16 pm
SpeedTrack v. [read post]
17 Nov 2013, 10:32 am
Addressed in the context of a marihuana (marijuana) sale, In People v. [read post]
6 Jan 2016, 6:33 am
Div. 2011) The court affordedState v. [read post]
14 Dec 2015, 10:57 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
10 Jul 2016, 10:00 pm
L.P. v. [read post]
18 Jul 2022, 4:05 am
The Supreme Court’s determination that Howard Fensterman’s conduct during the settlement of the New Franklin litigation “was simply a product of his conflict of interest in representing both buyers and sellers in the New Franklin and Fort Tyron transactions” is a premature factual finding inappropriate at this stage of the litigation (see Warney v State of New York, 16 NY3d 428, 436-437 [2011]; Matter of Gerard P. v Paula P., 186 AD3d 934, 938… [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 4:56 am
Here, according the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, she sufficiently alleged the existence of an attorney-client relationship (see Hall v Hobbick, 192 AD3d 776; see also Tropp v Lumer, 23 AD3d at 551). [read post]
9 Feb 2007, 9:24 am
The elements of strict liability are, "(1) the product was a defective condition at the time that it left the possession or control of the seller, (2) that it was unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer, (3) that the defect was a cause of the injuries, and (4) that the product was expected to win did reach the consumer without substantial change in its condition. [read post]
10 Jul 2011, 12:02 pm
Perhaps the INS v. [read post]
14 Jul 2015, 6:48 am
Friedman v. [read post]
25 May 2015, 7:04 am
However, that operation does not automatically lead to the opening of the document containing the seller’s general terms, as an extra click on a specific hyperlink for that purpose is still necessary. [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 5:18 am
Watts v. [read post]
29 Apr 2016, 8:56 am
” Id. at *13 (citing Medtronic v. [read post]
30 May 2024, 12:21 pm
The key is that using the goods is inconsistent with the seller’s ownership. [read post]
