Search for: "Rosenblatt v. Rosenblatt" Results 21 - 40 of 183
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Apr 2015, 11:30 am by Dan Ernst
Andrews): "'Impounded as a Stray': The English Legal Imaginary of Scotland in Henry V" Daniel Hulsebosch (Law, NYU): "Floors, Mirrors, and Ceilings in the Legal Architecture of Empire"Concluding RemarksModerators: Bradin Cormack and Lorna HutsonH/t: Michelle McKinley [read post]
16 Apr 2012, 4:03 pm
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court heard the case of the People, Respondent, v. [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 5:19 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The amended complaint further alleges that the defendants’ negligence proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages in that their delays in prosecuting the underlying action prevented him from being able to collect on the judgment that was eventually entered against the contractor (see Jean-Paul v Rosenblatt, 208 AD3d at 653; Aristakesian v Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., 165 AD3d 1023, 1024; Oberkirch v… [read post]
24 Apr 2018, 2:19 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  Betsy Rosenblatt: Movavi is among the popular screencap programs; there are several. [read post]
12 Feb 2015, 5:19 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Federal Courts - Moderator - Christine Farley, American University Washington College of Law Jessica Silbey, Suffolk University Law School - Intellectual Property Reform Through the Lens of Constitutional Equality Sandra Park, ACLU Women's Rights Project - A Feminist Challenge to Gene Patents: Association for Molecular Pathology v. [read post]
17 Apr 2023, 5:20 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The plaintiff’s general contentions that but for the defendant’s negligence, she “would have litigated her claims against the Board, or in the alternative, procured a settlement agreement with better terms of compensation and otherwise far more beneficial” are speculative and, as such, cannot serve as a basis for a legal malpractice claim (see Jean-Paul v Rosenblatt, 208 AD3d at 653; Katsoris v Bodnar & Milone, LLP, 186 AD3d at 1506). [read post]