Search for: "SMITH v. DAVIS" Results 281 - 300 of 693
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Aug 2011, 4:16 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Plaintiff's claim that had he not resigned, he may have been able to hide his fraudulent activities, [*4]continue to collect fees, and reach an agreement with OCM is purely speculative and does not raise a triable issue of fact (see AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 NY3d 428, 434-436 [2007]; GUS Consulting Gmb, 74 AD3d at 679; Phillips-Smith Speciality Retail Group II v Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl, 265 AD2d 208, 210 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d… [read post]
17 Jul 2011, 9:55 am by Hugh Tomlinson QC, Matrix Law
On Wednesday 20 July 2011, the Supreme Court will hand down judgment in R v Smith which was heard on 16 June 2011. [read post]
11 Jan 2010, 10:18 am by Joe Mullin
Supreme Court made getting such an injunction in a patent case extremely difficult with its landmark eBay v. [read post]
9 Dec 2019, 3:01 am by Walter Olson
Smith — Again” [Joseph Davis, Becket/Federalist Society on certiorari petition in Ricks v. [read post]
20 Mar 2009, 2:05 am
Parke Davis & Co., 402 N.E.2d 194, 198-99 (Ill. 1980); Needham v. [read post]
16 Apr 2019, 2:00 am by DONALD SCARINCI
Smith: The justices must decide what happens when the government fabricates evidence. [read post]
26 May 2011, 10:36 am by Sarnata Reynolds
The Supreme Court struck indefinite detention down as an affront to liberty in Zadvydas v. [read post]
23 May 2008, 6:31 pm
The conference was chaired by Edward Coleman of Surrett & Coleman of Augusta, Georgia and opening remarks were also made by Kurt Kegel of Davis Matthews and Quigley in Atlanta, Chair of the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Georgia. [read post]
27 Feb 2017, 4:23 am by Edith Roberts
In the Kentucky Law Journal, law student Page Smith looks at Kindred Nursing Centers Limited Partnership v. [read post]
2 Jan 2019, 4:45 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
This claim fails because plaintiff’s various successor counsel had ample time and opportunity to make such a motion, and in fact one did (although it was purportedly abandoned) (see Davis v Cohen & Gresser, LLP, 160 AD3d 484, 487 [1st Dept 2018]). [read post]