Search for: "Rosenthal v. Rosenthal" Results 301 - 320 of 536
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Feb 2010, 11:20 am by Cathy Reno
The controversial Citizens United v. [read post]
12 Dec 2013, 9:15 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  Beyond that, a song with samples v. a mashup with lots of samples are effectively the same thing from a legal standpoint. [read post]
13 Sep 2018, 4:30 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Further, the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts demonstrating that the defendant attorneys had the “intent to deceive the court or any party” (Judiciary Law § 487; see Schiller v Bender, Burrow, & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d 756, 759; Agostini v Sobol, 304 AD2d 395, 396). [read post]
17 Mar 2025, 6:21 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Generally, to recover damages for legal malpractice, a client must prove: “(1) that the [law firm] failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence commonly possessed by a member of the legal community, (2) proximate cause, (3) damages, and (4) that the [client] would have been successful in the underlying action had the [law firm] exercised due care” (Chamberlain, D’Amanda, Oppenheimer & Greenfield, LLP v Wilson, 136 AD3d 1326, 1327 [4th Dept… [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 5:30 pm by Colin O'Keefe
– Los Angeles attorney Alan Friel of BakerHostetler on the firm’s blog, the Data Privacy Monitor New Rules Risk Lives On The Highway – Hunstville lawyer Jeff Blackwell of Hornsby, Watson, Hornsby, Blackwell on his blog, Alabama Litigation Review The Law v. the Law According to the Media – Baltimore lawyer Fiona W. [read post]
31 Dec 2023, 8:30 am by Gene Takagi
Brennen: Race Conscious Affirmative Action by Tax Exempt 501(c)(3) Institutions After Students for Fair Admissions v. [read post]
14 Nov 2014, 5:30 pm by Colin O'Keefe
Addressing Personal Device Usage in the Workplace – Minneapolis lawyer V. [read post]
6 Dec 2010, 6:47 pm by Mark Bennett
*The irony is that, under the last administration, Chuck Rosenthal set Curry aside to argue before the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. [read post]