Search for: "Grant v. Raymond" Results 281 - 300 of 563
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Apr 2007, 9:06 pm
Later today, the Supreme Court will hear argument in No. 06-376, Hinck v. [read post]
21 Aug 2008, 4:33 pm
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Raymond to pay approximately one-half of the attorney fees incurred by the Appellees. [read post]
30 Dec 2016, 2:58 pm
| BREAKING: Unanimous Supreme Court in Samsung v Apple finds that damages may be based on a component, not whole product | (Belatedly) remembering Raymond Niro, the most influential person in patent litigation whom you may have never heard of | Genuine use of three dimensional EU trade marks - heated arguments over ovens | Wild Boys Sometimes Lose It: Duran Duran fail to reclaim their US copyright |Around the IP Blogs Never Too Late 125 [week ending on Sunday 4 December] |… [read post]
13 Jan 2017, 4:18 am by Edith Roberts
” Another potential Supreme Court nominee, Judge Raymond Gruender of the U.S. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 3:32 am by Peter Mahler
Such relief is rarely granted under New York law, where, as in the case at bar, the movant would be receiving the ultimate relief pendente lite and could ultimately be compensated through monetary damages, Rosa Hair Stylists Inc. v Jaber Food Corp., 218 AD2d 793 (2d Dep’t 1995); see Matos v City of New York, 21 AD3d 936 (2d Dep’t 2005); Neos v Lacey, 291 AD2d 434 (2d Dep’t 2002). [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 4:00 am by Amy Howe
The Court granted review in Fisher v. [read post]
4 Aug 2011, 2:53 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Therefore, Dalley's motion, in Motion Sequence No. 009, is granted only to the extent of granting summary judgment dismissing Harris's fourteenth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress as asserted against him. [read post]
24 Mar 2011, 1:15 pm by Bexis
  We did that not too long ago and came up with a new law review article, Samuel Raymond, “Judicial Politics & Medical Device Preemption After Riegel,” 5 N.Y.U.J.L. [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 2:52 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The court properly granted defendant Litchfield Cavo's motion to dismiss, since there was no evidence that Cavo, as superseding counsel, either contributed to the loss or could have done anything to correct the errors of predecessor counsel (see Waggoner v Caruso, 68 AD3d 1 [2009], affd 14 NY3d 874 [2010]; Rivas v Raymond Schwartzberg & Assoc., PLLC, 52 AD3d 401 [2008]). [read post]