Search for: "Davis v. Davis" Results 4701 - 4720 of 8,240
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Jan 2016, 2:32 am by Amy Howe
” Briefly: At the Human Rights at Home Blog, Martha Davis looks at the first wave of briefs filed in Whole Woman’s Health v. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 5:20 am by Amy Howe
” In an op-ed for USA Today, Joe Kernan urges the Court to grant review in Davis v. [read post]
20 Jun 2022, 3:11 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“An attorney may not be held liable for failing to act outside the scope of a retainer” (Attallah v Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, LLP, 168 AD3d 1026, 1028 [2d Dept 2019]; see AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 NY3d 428, 435 [2007]). [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 3:09 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
" "In opposition, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the Horn and Sager defendants committed malpractice by allegedly not calling the plaintiffs CPA as a witness, by advising him to enter into a modification of his March 12, 1999 child custody stipulation, or by failing to move to disqualify his former wife’s counsel (see generally Waggoner v Caruso, 14 NY3cl 874, 903 NYS2d 333 [2010]; Davis v Klein, 88 NY2d 1008, 648 NYS2d 871 [1996]). [read post]
18 Mar 2012, 6:43 pm by Orin Kerr
Under the latest good-faith exception case, Davis v. [read post]
31 Oct 2017, 4:20 am by Edith Roberts
Bank National Association v. [read post]
9 Aug 2011, 4:16 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Plaintiff's claim that had he not resigned, he may have been able to hide his fraudulent activities, [*4]continue to collect fees, and reach an agreement with OCM is purely speculative and does not raise a triable issue of fact (see AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 NY3d 428, 434-436 [2007]; GUS Consulting Gmb, 74 AD3d at 679; Phillips-Smith Speciality Retail Group II v Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl, 265 AD2d 208, 210 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 759… [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 4:07 pm by INFORRM
In the case of Aitken v DPP ([2015] EWHC 1079 (Admin)) the Divisional Court dismissed a former editor’s appeal against a conviction for publishing a story which breached an anonymity order under section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. [read post]
29 Oct 2007, 5:10 pm by Pamela Fasick
Description of Conversations With DFEH Representatives Were Not Hearsay Because They Were Offered to Prove the Plaintiff's State of MindHolland v. [read post]