Search for: "Moran v. Moran" Results 221 - 240 of 519
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Feb 2024, 8:58 am by Giles Peaker
Mr K argued that the accommodation was analogous to the womens’ refuge accommodation in R (Aweys) v Birmingham City Council; Moran v Manchester City Council (2009) UKHL 36, (2009) 1 WLR 1506. [read post]
11 Jun 2009, 4:43 am
  Here, in Terio v Spodek ;  2009 NY Slip Op 04412 Decided on June 2, 2009 ; Appellate Division, Second Department  we see how that might happen:   "To recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must prove, inter alia, the existence of an attorney-client relationship (see Velasquez v Katz, 42 AD3d 566, 567; Moran v Hurst, 32 AD3d 909; Wei Cheng Chang v Pi, 288 AD2d 378, 380; Volpe v Canfield,… [read post]
1 Feb 2007, 1:41 pm
But one case from that week (Moran) will be reargued. [read post]
24 Jun 2009, 4:32 am
LEXIS 4411June 2, 2009, Decided we see a short answer:   "To recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff [**4] must prove, inter alia, the existence of an attorney-client relationship (see Velasquez v Katz, 42 AD3d 566, 567, 840 N.Y.S.2d 410; Moran v Hurst, 32 AD3d 909, 822 N.Y.S.2d 564; Wei Cheng Chang v Pi, 288 AD2d 378, 380, 733 N.Y.S.2d 471; Volpe v Canfield, 237 AD2d 282, 283, 654 N.Y.S.2d 160). [read post]
24 Dec 2018, 3:02 am by Walter Olson
Practical difference between this and “…whenever they please” is not clear [Tim Carpenter, Topeka Capital-Journal] At Timbs v. [read post]
29 Mar 2021, 3:56 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“[A]n attorney-client relationship does not depend on the existence of a formal retainer agreement” (Moran v Hurst, 32 AD3d 909, 911). [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 12:57 pm
Co., 279 So. 2d 379, 381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) (citing Moran-Alleen Co. v. [read post]
7 Jun 2008, 6:38 pm
June 5, 2008): In addressing this issue, we are guided by the well-settled principle that "where there is no legitimate expectation of privacy, there is no search or seizure" under the Fourth Amendment (United States v Moran, 349 F Supp 2d 425, 467 [2005]). [read post]
20 Dec 2007, 3:59 am
Moran v McCarthy, Safrath & Carbone, P.C., 31 AD3d 725; Terio v Spodek, 25 AD3d 781). [read post]
3 Jan 2020, 9:05 pm by Milad Emamian
  Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. [read post]