Search for: "See v. See" Results 2681 - 2700 of 122,080
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Mar 2024, 3:22 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“A violation of Judiciary Law § 487 requires an intent to deceive” (Moormann v Perini & Hoerger, 65 AD3d 1106, 1108 [2009]; see Cordell Marble Falls, LLC v Kelly, 191 AD3d at 762). [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 3:00 am by jonathanturley
It is now subject to the same test that Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once used to identify pornography in the case Jacobellis v. [read post]
3 Mar 2024, 12:24 pm by Josh Blackman
We see no documentary support for the conclusion that any of these documents were produced to address inquiries about eligibility under the Sinecure Clause. [read post]
3 Mar 2024, 10:19 am by Giles Peaker
Hickmet and Cheerz Express Limited v Dragos (Luton County Court, 19 January 2024) Ms Dragos was the assured shorthold tenant of Cheerz Express, with the tenancy beginning 1 June 2017. [read post]
2 Mar 2024, 1:04 pm by Orin S. Kerr
  If the government is only allowed to search in a few places, the thinking runs, they won't see overly much. [read post]
1 Mar 2024, 5:16 pm by Tom Ginsburg
The famous Brandeis brief appears around that time, in such cases as Muller v. [read post]
1 Mar 2024, 6:12 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Furthermore, in the third action, plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for fraud, as he did not sufficiently allege out-of-pocket losses that stemmed from any alleged fraud, but rather, asserted only speculative losses (see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 421 [1996]). [read post]
1 Mar 2024, 6:10 am by Federica Paddeu
States have often adopted measures against perceived violations of erga omnes obligations by other States, and the recent round of sanctions taken by several (though mainly western) States in response to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is the latest example (for a detailed analysis of earlier practice see Tams, Katselli Proukaki, and Dawidowicz). [read post]