Search for: "Elms v. Elms" Results 21 - 40 of 86
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Jan 2018, 4:37 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Summary judgment is not appropriate in a malpractice action where, as here, the parties adduce conflicting expert opinions (see Henry v Sunrise Manor Ctr. for Nursing & Rehabilitation, 147 AD3d 739 [2017]; Elmes v Yelon, 140 AD3d 1009, 1011 [2016]). [read post]
9 Jun 2017, 11:17 am by Dennis Crouch
The PTO’s self-grant of a federal holiday is a statutory issue, and even after an unpublished district court decision in Elm 3DS Innovations LLC v Lee, that’s still an open issue clouding validity of patents. [read post]
2 Aug 2016, 4:57 am by Broc Romanek
Scrolling feels natural on a smart phone; not so much for a laptop… Conflict Minerals: IPSA Uncertainty Likely to Carry Over to ’17 Here’s the intro from this note from Elm Sustainability Partners: With the Securities and Exchange Commission’s decision earlier this year to forego an appeal to the US Supreme Court of NAM v. [read post]
2 Jun 2016, 5:23 am by Mary Jane Wilmoth
Frederic Elm f/k/a Frederic Elmaleh, Elm Tree Investment Advisors LLC, Elm Tree Investment Fund LP, Elm Tree ‘e’Conomy Fund LP, and Elm Tree Motion Opportunity LPCase number: 15-cv-60082 (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida)Case filed: January 15, 2015Qualifying Judgment/Order: April 12, 2016 5/31/2016 8/29/2016 2016-68 In the Matter of Cabela’s Incorporated and Ralph W. [read post]
3 Feb 2015, 4:09 am by Charles Sartain
Posted by Charles SartainCo-author Alexandra Crawley In Elm Ridge Exploration Co., LLC v. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 9:51 pm by Patricia Salkin
” Therefore, Little Elm County, not the Town, had the authority to approve the plat for Bizios’s subdivision and did so in 1995. [read post]
4 Sep 2014, 4:32 am by Broc Romanek
Also check out these industry-specific recaps of conflict mineral reporting from Deloitte… Debate: Safe Harbors v. [read post]
2 Jun 2014, 3:48 am by Broc Romanek
The SEC is seeking a rehearing because the same court granted en banc rehearing in American Meat Institute v. [read post]