Search for: "Matter of Davis v State of New York"
Results 261 - 280
of 527
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Aug 2016, 12:08 pm
Authored by Thomas Burke and Rochelle Wilcox of Davis Wright Tremaine. [read post]
17 Aug 2016, 6:55 am
Waterfront Comm’n of New York Harbor, 378 U.S. 52, 68 (1964). [read post]
5 Aug 2016, 5:40 am
While this comes from a New York decision, the point is fairly universal. [read post]
1 Aug 2016, 6:21 pm
See generally Ferens v. [read post]
25 Jul 2016, 9:01 pm
For example, a few years ago in Arlington v. [read post]
31 May 2016, 4:49 am
The decision devotes but a single sentence to its rationale for relieving the two shareholders of liability: The Supreme Court also should not have found liability on the part of Tehseldar and Tartir, who were corporate principals of the corporate defendants, because one of the primary legitimate purposes of incorporating is to limit or eliminate the personal liability of corporate principals (see Bartle v Home Owners Coop., 309 NY 103, 106), and the court did not find that they… [read post]
22 May 2016, 4:05 pm
The “Hemisphere” programme was uncovered by journalists from the New York Times in 2013. [read post]
19 May 2016, 9:01 pm
House of Representatives v. [read post]
23 Apr 2016, 12:33 am
Scene V. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 6:43 am
Since the CBS case was decided, the majority of states have followed New York. [read post]
18 Mar 2016, 8:49 am
See, e.g., Davis v. [read post]
18 Mar 2016, 8:49 am
See, e.g., Davis v. [read post]
18 Mar 2016, 8:49 am
See, e.g., Davis v. [read post]
16 Mar 2016, 9:01 pm
A court in New York, in In re Sebastian, agreed to allow a co-parent, already protected by New York’s marital presumption, to petition for a second-parent adoption. [read post]
11 Mar 2016, 5:18 pm
” (Quoting Friends of Davis v. [read post]
10 Mar 2016, 9:01 pm
First is the matter of overturning Citizens United. [read post]
24 Feb 2016, 2:20 pm
Following the signed pledge from the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the New York Times notes that the decision has moved “the Senate into unprecedented territory: Senators meet with high-court nominees as matters of courtesy and cordiality, but even that tradition has been rejected. [read post]
23 Feb 2016, 4:10 am
This is the Court’s first exclusionary rule case since Davis v. [read post]
11 Feb 2016, 7:34 am
RUEDA, Appellant V. [read post]
3 Feb 2016, 7:31 am
Michael Landon (“Little Joe Cartwright”) being served with a subpoena (1968) Another useful Townsend post addresses a common issue — the Government’s attempt to muzzle the recipients of subpoenas: In United States v. [read post]
