Search for: "Mays v. Mays" Results 21 - 40 of 203,304
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Jun 2024, 7:57 am by Professor Alberto Bernabe
Krunchcash, LLC (May 30, 2024), in which the lower court determined that Lawyer A was required to notify Lawyer B that the link contained folders that "counsel knew or should have known were confidential or privileged. [read post]
17 Jun 2024, 6:06 am by Raquel Vázquez Llorente
Earlier this year, it was referenced in the hearings at the International Court of Justice for the case of South Africa v. [read post]
17 Jun 2024, 5:00 am by Written on behalf of Peter McSherry
These questions were answered in the recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in Ratz-Cheung v BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. [read post]
17 Jun 2024, 5:00 am by Written on behalf of Peter McSherry
These questions were answered in the recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in Ratz-Cheung v BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. [read post]
17 Jun 2024, 3:41 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Getty v Schiavetta 2024 NY Slip Op 50697(U) Decided on May 18, 2024 Supreme Court, Westchester County Ondrovic, J. is a factually simple pro-se legal malpractice litigation with an interesting procedural twist. [read post]
17 Jun 2024, 3:37 am by Peter J. Sluka
  According to Eccles v Shamrock Capital Advisors, LLC, the internal affairs doctrine, by which “matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders” are governed by the law of the state of incorporation, the foreign law applies (2024 NY Slip Op 02841 [Ct App May 23, 2024]). [read post]
16 Jun 2024, 10:48 pm by Chukwuma Okoli
” He concludes that: “Thus, the idea that “an expert in conflict of laws is now at the Supreme Court after a long time”  is potentially misleading—especially for persons, businesses, and investors who may not know the inner workings of complex legal systems such as Nigeria. [read post]
16 Jun 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
On 15 May 2024, the UK Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment in the case RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV,[1] addressing the modern approach to be taken to FMCs under English law, as well as taking the opportunity to examine the relationship between concepts of autonomy and certainty of contract on the one hand, and what might have been seen as commercial pragmatism on the other. [read post]