Search for: "McCoy v. McCoy"
Results 301 - 320
of 571
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Dec 2010, 3:43 am
An attorney may be liable for ignorance of the rules of practice, for failure to comply with conditions precedent to suit, for neglect to prosecute or defend an action, or for failure to conduct adequate legalresearch (see, Conklin v Owen, 72 AD3d 1006; McCoy v Tepper, 26 1 AD2d 592; Gardner v Jacon,148 AD2d 794, 796; Grago v Robertson, 49 AD2d 645,646). [read post]
17 Aug 2018, 8:55 am
United States (Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act – Trust Funds) McCoy v. [read post]
21 Jan 2007, 3:55 pm
McCoy, 692 N.W.2d 6, 24 (Iowa 2005) (applying those factors). [read post]
12 Nov 2008, 12:00 am
This could create yet another conflict with McCoy v. [read post]
27 Sep 2013, 9:10 am
This issue first came to the country’s attention when in a non-Maryland case McCoy v. [read post]
31 Oct 2011, 9:20 am
Hoag v. [read post]
31 Oct 2011, 9:20 am
Hoag v. [read post]
7 Oct 2011, 8:24 pm
McCoy v. [read post]
7 Jul 2008, 3:15 pm
No this isn't IPKatSee Procter & Gamble v HMRC [2008] EWHC 1558 (Ch) and in particular the glorious write up here.Food gets a 0% VAT rate. [read post]
20 Nov 2019, 4:27 am
“”In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the attorney ‘failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession’ and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007], quoting McCoy v… [read post]
23 Jul 2010, 2:51 am
Contrary to the Meighan defendants' contention, inasmuch as the plaintiff did not sustain "actionable injury" until this Court awarded the buyers specific performance in the underlying action, the plaintiff's legal malpractice cause of action against them was not time-barred (McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301; see Kerbein v Hutchison, 30 AD3d 730, 732). [read post]
5 Apr 2011, 1:00 am
Plaintiffs' claim of legal malpractice is subject to a three-year statute of limitations which accrued when the actionable injury occurred — that is, at the time of the malpractice, not the time of its discovery (see CPLR 214 [6]; McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002]). [read post]
17 Jan 2012, 2:46 am
Here, the defendant's reliance upon the advice of the borrower's attorney reflects a failure to exercise ordinary reasonable skill (see Shopsin v Siben & Siben, 268 AD2d 578; McCoy v Tepper, 261 AD2d 592, 593; Logalbo v Plishkin, Rubano & Baum, 163 AD2d 511, 514). [read post]
6 Apr 2010, 3:16 am
Here, the defendant's reliance upon the advice of the borrower's attorney reflects a failure to exercise ordinary reasonable skill (see Shopsin v Siben & Siben, 268 AD2d 578; McCoy v Tepper, 261 AD2d 592, 593; Logalbo v Plishkin, Rubano & Baum, 163 AD2d 511, 514). [read post]
7 Nov 2008, 9:10 pm
We've just been informed of a California appellate decision, Conte v. [read post]
12 Oct 2017, 4:29 am
This is true even where the plaintiff is unaware of any malpractice, damages, or injury (McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d at 300- 301). [read post]
3 Mar 2021, 3:43 am
“In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the attorney ‘failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession’ and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442, quoting McCoy v Feinman, 99… [read post]
25 Feb 2010, 3:15 am
”The Court of Appeals cited Gavigan v McCoy, 37 NY2d 548, Niebling v Wagner, 12 NY2d 314, and Mandle v Brown, 4 AD2d 283, affirmed 5 NY2d 51, as cases demonstrating the proposition that an employee cannot achieve a higher grade or salary by being assigned or engaging in out-of-title work “because this would violate the fundamental civil service tenet of advancement through competitive examination. [read post]
5 Jul 2019, 3:03 am
He failed to show that his legal malpractice claims premised on defendants’ representation of him in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York were not time-barred (see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 300, 306 [2002]). [read post]
5 Jul 2019, 3:03 am
He failed to show that his legal malpractice claims premised on defendants’ representation of him in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York were not time-barred (see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 300, 306 [2002]). [read post]
