Search for: "Kelley v. Kelley" Results 321 - 340 of 690
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Mar 2008, 7:41 am
Kelley, No. 07-0485 [granted on 2-15-2008 and discussed here]. [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 6:58 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538, 1554 (Fed. [read post]
28 Nov 2013, 8:54 am by Rich Vetstein
That may be the unintended result of a recent court decision by the First Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel in Weiss v. [read post]
17 Aug 2020, 4:28 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The defendant’s evidentiary submissions did not establish that a material fact alleged in the complaint is not a fact at all and that no significant dispute exists regarding it (see Lopez v Lozner & Mastropietro, P.C., 166 AD3d 871, 873; see also Endless Ocean, LLC v Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo, 113 AD3d at 589). [read post]
21 Feb 2025, 6:29 am
Posted by the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, on Friday, February 21, 2025 Editor's Note: This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of February 14-20, 2025 The Evolving Anti-DEI and Anti-ESG Landscape: Implications for the Public Sector Posted by Allison Wyderka and Wickham Egan, Egan-Jones Ratings Company, on Friday, February 14, 2025 Tags: Anti-DEI, anti-ESG, Board of Directors, Donald Trump Implications of Tornetta… [read post]
21 Feb 2025, 6:29 am
Posted by the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, on Friday, February 21, 2025 Editor's Note: This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of February 14-20, 2025 The Evolving Anti-DEI and Anti-ESG Landscape: Implications for the Public Sector Posted by Allison Wyderka and Wickham Egan, Egan-Jones Ratings Company, on Friday, February 14, 2025 Tags: Anti-DEI, anti-ESG, Board of Directors, Donald Trump Implications of Tornetta… [read post]
25 Mar 2010, 2:35 pm by Juan Antunez
., in Boca Raton, Florida, was on the winning side of Pajares v. [read post]
26 Nov 2018, 4:16 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
” “Here, accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the plaintiff stated a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice (see Tooma v Grossbarth, 121 AD3d at 1095-1096; Endless Ocean, LLC v Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo, 113 AD3d 587, 589; Reynolds v Picciano, 29 AD2d 1012, 1012). [read post]
5 Aug 2011, 3:21 am by Russ Bensing
That was the question the 6th Circuit wrestled with in their decision last week in Muniz v. [read post]