Search for: "Cross v. Cross"
Results 4361 - 4380
of 21,872
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
Tax Court of Canada Limits Shopping for Expert Witnesses: Aecon Construction Group Inc. v. The Queen
12 Jun 2012, 6:22 am
F’s affidavit does not disclose if he has, in fact, received any and the appellant did not cross-examine Mr. [read post]
25 Oct 2016, 7:59 am
In the recent case of Finkel v. [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 3:13 pm
Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, 301 B.R. 662 (Bankr D.N.J. 2003) (providers have standing to demand payment in the absence of an anti-assignment clause), and Ambulatory Surgical Center of New Jersey v. [read post]
19 Jul 2024, 6:34 am
Smith v. [read post]
26 May 2019, 2:52 pm
” See La Crosse Tech., Ltd. v. [read post]
17 Nov 2017, 4:08 am
Co. v Indemnity Ins. [read post]
9 Jan 2024, 8:24 am
Snap, Lee v. [read post]
12 Aug 2010, 1:06 pm
Sys. v. [read post]
14 Jun 2018, 4:27 am
Grace v. [read post]
23 Apr 2008, 3:29 pm
Who could possibly think that not letting anyone on the defendant's side hear the testimony of the key prosecution witness before cross-examining her was okay? [read post]
12 Mar 2019, 1:02 pm
Link To Your Sources (Forbes Cross-Post) Social Media Rant Against Airline Employee Wasn’t Defamatory But May Be False Light–Patterson v. [read post]
24 Jun 2008, 10:51 pm
Supply, Inc. v Deerbrook Ins. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 10:48 am
Scottish Widows appealed and HMRC cross-appealed. [read post]
18 Aug 2022, 1:27 am
Apple cross-appeal on October 21. [read post]
19 Mar 2018, 4:42 am
Moor v. [read post]
6 Jan 2010, 5:47 am
In Blue Cross of California v. [read post]
13 Aug 2012, 1:16 am
While the defendants' cross motion was made more than 120 days after the note of issue was filed and, therefore, was untimely (see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648), an untimely cross motion for summary judgment may be considered by the court where, as here, a timely motion for summary judgment was made on nearly identical grounds (see Grande v Peteroy, 39 AD3d 590, 592; Lennard v Khan, 69 AD3d 812, 814; Bressingham v Jamaica Hosp. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 4:04 am
While the defendants' cross motion was made more than 120 days after the note of issue was filed and, therefore, was untimely (see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648), an untimely cross motion for summary judgment may be considered by the court where, as here, a timely motion for summary judgment was made on nearly identical grounds (see Grande v Peteroy, 39 AD3d 590, 592; Lennard v Khan, 69 AD3d 812, 814; Bressingham v Jamaica Hosp. [read post]
15 Mar 2010, 12:49 pm
Cunningham v. [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 9:07 pm
In the watershed and famous case taught in first year law school classes - Chaplinsky v. [read post]
