Search for: "Merit v. Lynn*" Results 21 - 40 of 141
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Mar 2010, 11:13 am by Eric Lipman
And also some scarily serious coverage on the Lynn v. [read post]
29 Oct 2015, 12:45 pm
The parties agree Assembly Bill 15 does not render the appeal moot because it will likely not become effective in time to benefit plaintiffs, particularly Christy Lynne Donorovich Odonnell, given her life expectancy, and the measure's future is uncertain because opponents have filed paperwork with the Attorney General to challenge it by referendum on the state ballot in 2016.We have great compassion for plaintiffs, but we conclude their statutory and constitutional arguments lack… [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 7:11 am
 Further, where the letter of intent is unambiguous and constitutes an enforceable contract, it is unnecessary to have a plenary hearing on the merits of a motion to enforce a settlement agreementFacts: The appeal arose out of the execution of a letter of intent which was the result of the settlement of litigation over the contested ownership of parking spaces.Analysis:  Distinguishing Cochran v Norkunas, which held that the parties did not intend to be bound by… [read post]
1 Jan 2014, 3:35 pm by Kevin Goldberg
SESAC dodges injunction, can raise rates for 2014 – but Magistrate Judge’s decision bodes well for RMLC’s odds on the merits of its antitrust case The New Year. [read post]
22 Sep 2004, 10:41 am
I am posting an exchange from the BOPWatch listserve, which directly pertains to the Goldings v. [read post]
4 Dec 2022, 9:30 pm by ernst
PolgarFrom Conspiracy to Policy: James V. [read post]
23 Nov 2009, 11:00 am by Kevin Sheerin
Matter of Craig Emmerling and Lynn Emmerling v Town of Richmon Zoning Board of Appeals This article 78 appeal was brought about to challenge a judgment of the Supreme Court dismissing a petition. [read post]
8 Oct 2013, 2:40 pm by Ron Miller
That point was driven home again by the Eleventh Circuit in an unpublished opinion in Wolff v Royal American Management, Inc. [read post]