Search for: "McKinney v. State" Results 281 - 300 of 452
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Sep 2019, 4:25 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3025:3 at 87, citing Mendoza v Mendoza, 4 Misc 2d 1060, 1061 [Sup Ct, NY County 1947], affd 273 App Div 877 [1st Dept 1948]). [read post]
15 Aug 2018, 4:41 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
A claim for simple negligence is “restricted to those cases where the alleged negligent act is readily determinable by the trier of the facts on common knowledge,” whereas a claim for malpractice is one that typically requires expert testimony or other specialized knowledge (Hale v State of New York, 53 AD2d 1025, 1025 [4th Dept 1976]). [read post]
15 Jan 2012, 10:59 am by Matthew McKinney
The Iowa Court of Appeals addressed Oppression, Breach of Fiduciary Duty,  Freeze Out, and Judicial Dissolution in Jochimsen v. [read post]
25 May 2015, 11:54 am by Stephen Bilkis
Quintana, 237 A.D.2d 130, 654 N.Y.S.2d 27; Merola v Merola, supra; Kilmer v Kilmer, supra; Leffingwell v Leffingwell, supra ). [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 5:30 pm by Colin O'Keefe
– Legal marketing expert Paula Black on her In Black and White blog FunnyJunk v. [read post]
11 Apr 2015, 11:19 am by Stephen Bilkis
The test is one of "usefulness and reason"(Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. [read post]
8 Jul 2020, 9:33 am by Lowell Brown
John Charles “Charlie” Ginn, of McKinney, succeeded Jerry C. [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 2:57 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Later that day, he spoke to Leschins, "who confirmed that he had consulted with plaintiff weeks earlier," but "refused to state whether he would be appearing as attorney for plaintiff" in the lawsuit. [read post]
24 Oct 2012, 3:08 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Later that day, he spoke to Leschins, "who confirmed that he had consulted with plaintiff weeks earlier," but "refused to state whether he would be appearing as attorney for plaintiff" in the lawsuit. [read post]
23 Oct 2013, 4:24 am by Kathy Kapusta
” The lower court, however, failed to consider the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Tilton v Missouri Pacific Railroad Co, in which the High Court found that McKinney “did not adopt a rule of absolute foreseeability. [read post]