Search for: "MAY v. CASH et al" Results 21 - 40 of 362
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Jan 2023, 4:27 am by Peter J. Sluka
Less than a week after Hodak filed his dissolution petition, Golan Floors, Ruham, and Hodak were all sued in New York County by Farhadi, a dissatisfied customer who alleged that Golan Floors damaged his furniture and performed seriously substandard work in connection with the restoration of his Chelsea condominium unit (Farhadi v Golan Floors Inc., et al., No. 655203/2019). [read post]
27 Dec 2022, 4:24 am by Peter J. Sluka
Although courts have the equitable power to correct “a mistake solely in the reduction of an agreement to writing” (Stang LLC v Hudson Sq. [read post]
9 Nov 2022, 10:22 am by INFORRM
Arkansas Times LP v Mark Waldrip, et al, No. 19-1378 (8th Circuit, 2022). [read post]
15 Oct 2022, 10:53 pm by Florian Mueller
Avanci et al., United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, case no. 20-11032: April 20, 2022 "Brief of Amici Curiae ACT | The App Association, Computer and Communication[s] Industry Association, High Tech Inventor[s] Alliance, and Public Interest Patent Law Institute in support of petition for interference en banc" (I haven't mentioned Perkins Coie before, but I know and respect former as well as current Perkins partners)Google v. [read post]
22 Aug 2022, 9:05 pm by Christine Liu
Previous literature largely uses news reports to infer restructuring (see Gilson et al., 1990, among others). [read post]
28 Jul 2022, 1:02 pm by Stephen Dnes
The courts will decide whether cases like Daily Mail v Google and Texas et al. v Google show illegal monopolization of data flows, so as to fall within this special case of market power. [read post]
18 Jul 2022, 2:46 pm by Kevin LaCroix
It does, however, indicate how investors themselves may also be exposed to claims of a similar nature. [read post]
19 May 2022, 1:00 am by Stephan Spencer
Nemacolin Woodlands Resort, et al. for the case explanation. 5. [read post]
19 Apr 2022, 12:37 pm by Bernard Bell
”  But, the Court said, it was not clear “how explaining to the public what may constitute grounds for inadmissibility—essentially a legal interpretation—may potentially help an individual circumvent the law. [read post]