Search for: "Plaintiff(s) v. Defendant(s)" Results 321 - 340 of 69,833
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 May 2024, 11:00 pm
CHECKS REFLECTED THAT THE DISPUTED INVOICE HAD BEEN FULLY PAIDIn a commercial claims case brought in the Kings County Civil Court, CEH&AC alleged that it was owed money for heating system services provided to MRE&P.While the plaintiff alleged that some $2,203.94 was due, after a hearing (and a review of the defendants payment receipts), the judge ended up dismissing the case.On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, noted that the… [read post]
18 May 2024, 7:41 am by Russell Knight
Other factors include: (1) the length of time used to obtain service of process; (2) the activities of the plaintiff; (3) plaintiffs knowledge of the defendants location; (4) the ease with which the defendants whereabouts could have been ascertained; (5) special circumstances which would affect plaintiffs efforts; and (6) actual service on the defendant”  Womick… [read post]
17 May 2024, 9:16 am by Edward T. Kang
Given that such challenges usually involve a single plaintiff defending against the enforcement of one non-compete, the effect of the noncompete on wages and the employee’s mobility in the labor market is likely to be lost in statistical noise. [read post]
17 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
 United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term 2023 Argued: March 19, 2024 Decided: May 10, 2024 No. 23-1217 JASON DOHERTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. [read post]
17 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
 United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term 2023 Argued: March 19, 2024 Decided: May 10, 2024 No. 23-1217 JASON DOHERTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. [read post]
16 May 2024, 10:30 pm by Michael Chatzipanagiotis
On the contrary, the national court did not have to inquire the consumer’s opinion since the consumer was not a party to the dispute (para. 49). 5. [read post]
16 May 2024, 12:11 pm by centerforartlaw
Marian Goodman Gallery In October 2022, the Baldessari Estate (“the Estate”) filed suit in the Supreme Court of New York accusing Marian Goodman Gallery (the “Goodman Gallery”) of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of obligations under NYACAL Article 12, and breach of negligence and gross negligence.[13] The Estate is administered by Jab Art Enterprises, LLC, Annamarie Baldessari and Antonio Baldessari as Trustees of the John Baldessari Trust, Annamarie… [read post]
16 May 2024, 12:11 pm by centerforartlaw
Marian Goodman Gallery In October 2022, the Baldessari Estate (“the Estate”) filed suit in the Supreme Court of New York accusing Marian Goodman Gallery (the “Goodman Gallery”) of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of obligations under NYACAL Article 12, and breach of negligence and gross negligence.[13] The Estate is administered by Jab Art Enterprises, LLC, Annamarie Baldessari and Antonio Baldessari as Trustees of the John Baldessari Trust, Annamarie… [read post]