Search for: "Kaufman v. Kaufman" Results 381 - 400 of 601
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Dec 2007, 11:21 am
The court dismissed the claim, with leave to amend and refile it spelling out his claim more clearly.In Kaufman v. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 8:51 am by Neil Cahn
Supporting its recalculation, the Second Department cited only its decision in Kaufman v. [read post]
18 Nov 2024, 6:08 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The same statute of limitations applies to claims for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and fraud (see Kaufman, 307 AD2d at 126-27; see also Wimbledon Financing Master Fund, Ltd v Hallac, 192 AD3d 617, 618 [I st Dept 2021]; Belair Care Ctr., Inc. v Cool Insuring Agency, Inc., 168 AD3d 1162, 1166 [3d Dept 2019])], again assuming they are not deemed to be malpractice claims subject to CPLR 214(6). a. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 5:25 am by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use Kaufman v. [read post]
19 Mar 2019, 6:30 pm by Howard Bashman
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit consisting of Circuit Judges Paul V. [read post]
29 Dec 2011, 10:11 am by Jose Perez
Pinche aquí para ver el vídeo Via | HdeHombre Jose Perez Contador Publico, Maestro en Impuestos y Socio de Chamlaty Perez, SC. [read post]
21 May 2022, 5:28 am by Just Security
by Iris Malone (@irisemalone) Technology Policy A Quantum Sputnik Moment by Nima Leclerc Surveillance and Reproductive Rights With Roe v. [read post]
13 Apr 2022, 2:00 am by mes286
Kaufman, Visiting Associate Professor of Law, Washington University in St. [read post]
6 Feb 2019, 2:59 am by Walter Olson
Seventh Circuit rules against “disparate impact” age discrimination claims for job applicants, and a Forbes columnist writes as if it had decided to abolish disparate treatment claims for them as well [my Twitter thread on botched coverage of Kleber v. [read post]
4 Jun 2014, 5:25 am by Amy Howe
Commentators continue to discuss Monday’s decision in Bond v. [read post]
18 Dec 2020, 3:10 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel has the burden of demonstrating the identity of the issues in the present litigation and the prior determination, whereas the party attempting to defeat its application has the burden of establishing the absence of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action” (Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449, 456 [1985]). [read post]
20 Oct 2008, 5:33 pm
Walt Disney Productions v. [read post]
2 Nov 2017, 3:55 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Corp. v Goldstein, 151 AD3d 1102, 1107, quoting Kaufman v Cohen, 307 AD2d 113, 125). [read post]