Search for: "U. S. v. Levine" Results 21 - 40 of 135
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Feb 2021, 5:47 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
(See Levine v Lacher & Lovell-Taylor, 256 AD2d 147, 149 [1st Dept 1998].) [read post]
23 Dec 2020, 6:21 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Buxton v Zukoff  2020 NY Slip Op 33426(U) October 16, 2020  Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 160223/15 Judge: Lynn R. [read post]
12 Oct 2020, 5:40 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Based on the foregoing, Lindenwood’s factual allegations fail to support the element of proximate cause (see Levine v Lacher & Lovell-Taylor, 256 AD2d at 149-150; Gersh v Nixon Peabody LLP, 2017 NY Slip Op 30363[U], 2017 NY Misc LEXIS 682, * 18-19 [Sup Ct, NY County 2017]; Caso v Sklarin, 2016 NY Misc LEXIS 6863, * 12-13 [Sup Ct, NY County May 26, 2016, No. 159192/2015]). [read post]
29 Sep 2019, 4:08 pm by INFORRM
  Media Law in Other Jurisdictions Australia In the case of Poniatowska v Channel Seven Sydney [2019] SASCFC 111, the full Court allowed the plaintiff’s appeal against the Judge’s dismissal of her defamation action and entered judgment of damages to be assessed. [read post]
7 Aug 2019, 4:17 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Mazal Manager, LLC v Herrick Feinstein LLP  2019 NY Slip Op 32305(U)  July 29, 2019  Supreme Court, New York County  Docket Number: 158840/2018   Judge: O. [read post]
2 Apr 2018, 11:56 am by Will Baude
S. 785, 791 (1981) (Marshall, J., dissenting); Office of Personnel Management v. [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 1:17 pm by Nancy E. Halpern, D.V.M.
Ct. 2004) (asserting that the statutory definition of “companion animal” was unconstitutionally vague); Levine v. [read post]
2 Jan 2018, 3:03 am by Peter Mahler
Kassab v Kassab, 56 Misc 3d 1213(A), 2017 NY Slip Op 50986(U) [Sup Ct Queens County Aug. 3, 2017], in which the trial court conditionally granted a minority shareholder’s petition to dissolve a realty-owning corporation co-owned by his brother based largely on post-petition oppressive conduct, and ordered a buyout based on the court’s fair-value determination that excluded any discount for lack of marketability. [read post]