Search for: "State v. Schauer"
Results 21 - 40
of 89
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jan 2014, 10:50 am
” As readers of this Blog are aware, Sandifer v. [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 3:14 am
Last June, in Christopher v. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 1:47 pm
By Alex Passantino, Jessica Schauer Lieberman and Arthur Rooney Those watching the U.S. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 1:47 pm
By Alex Passantino, Jessica Schauer Lieberman and Arthur Rooney Those watching the U.S. [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 6:00 am
For example, Chief Justice Warren’s deferential approach to Congress in United States v. [read post]
15 Nov 2022, 10:00 am
” This observation, one of my favorites in the widely taught United States v. [read post]
27 Apr 2018, 3:52 am
Under these circumstances, Ikhilov has stated a cause of action against the Lyubarskys to recover damages for contribution (see Schauer v Joyce, 54 NY2d at 5). [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 11:01 am
Bollinger) and state prisons (Turner v. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 9:18 am
The Supreme Court of the United States declined today to end the judicial practice of deferring to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations in “friend of the court” briefs filed with a court in Christopher v. [read post]
8 Feb 2012, 3:03 am
Blank Rome also fails to state a cause of action for contractual indemnification since "[a] party is entitled to full contractual indemnification provided that the intention to indemnify can be clearly implied from the language and purposes of the entire agreement and the surrounding facts and circumstances" (Drzewinski v Atlantic Scaffold & Ladder Co., 70 NY2d 774, 777 [1987] [internal quotation marks omitted]; Masciotta v Morse Diesel Intl., Inc., 303 AD2d… [read post]
16 Sep 2011, 11:14 am
Louis Law) presents “Responding to Roe v. [read post]
7 Mar 2009, 2:19 pm
Both (a) nor (b) tend to re-enforce Fred Schauer's jaundiced view of legislatures' interest in honoring constitutional norms, while (c) seems too kookily conspiratorial for a state legislature. [read post]
3 Nov 2009, 3:41 am
Contrary to Vinar's contention, the Lazer defendants are entitled to seek contribution or indemnification from him, as a subsequently retained attorney, to the extent his alleged negligence in settling the plaintiff's arbitration claims may have contributed to or aggravated her injuries (see Schauer v Joyce, 54 NY2d 1, 3-6; Alfaro v Schwartz, 233 AD2d 281, 281-282; Herkrath v Gaffin & Mayo, 192 AD2d 487, 488). [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 2:29 am
As succinctly stated by the Court of Appeals, the relevant question on the viability of the contribution claim asserted herein is not whether the Baum Firm owed a duty to Stein, "but whether each owed a duty to plaintiff and whether, by breaching their respective duties, they contributed to her ultimate injuries…" Schauer v. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 3:34 am
If the DeCaro defendants are found to have also committed malpractice, the Meighan defendants and the DeCaro defendants may both be liable as successive tortfeasors who each contributed to the same injury (see Schauer v Joyce, 54 NY2d 1, 6; Soussis v Lazer, Aptheker, Rosella & Yedid, P.C., 66 AD3d 993, 994-995; Khlevner v Tylo, 16 Misc 3d 1129[A]). [read post]
21 Sep 2022, 5:01 am
Prior to 2012, when the Supreme Court decided United States v. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 3:00 am
Baum, P.C., may be liable to the Stein defendants for causing or contributing to the plaintiff's alleged damages (see Schauer v Joyce, 54 NY2d 1, 6; see also Frederick v Meighan, 75 AD3d 528, 532). [read post]
26 Aug 2011, 8:44 am
Bernstein writes that this view is hard to square with Greenhouse's support for Roe v. [read post]
22 Nov 2011, 3:03 am
If the DeCaro defendants are found to have also committed malpractice, the Meighan defendants and the DeCaro defendants may both be liable as successive tortfeasors who each contributed to the same injury (see Schauer v Joyce, 54 NY2d 1, 6; Soussis v Lazer, Aptheker, Rosella & Yedid, P.C., 66 AD3d 993, 994-995; Khlevner v Tylo, 16 Misc 3d 1129[A]). [read post]
5 Sep 2023, 9:05 pm
Supreme Court next term of Securities and Exchange Commission v. [read post]
