Search for: "MATTER OF APPELL v. Appell"
Results 461 - 480
of 25,355
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jan 2024, 10:14 am
Not a word on this from the appellate court. [read post]
24 Jan 2024, 12:36 am
Citing Matter of Puig v New York State Police, 212 AD3d 1025, the Appellate Division said the administrative record and the DOE's affidavits demonstrate "that the descriptions provided are insufficient for purposes of extracting or retrieving the requested document[s] from the virtual files through an electronic word search ... [read post]
24 Jan 2024, 12:36 am
Citing Matter of Puig v New York State Police, 212 AD3d 1025, the Appellate Division said the administrative record and the DOE's affidavits demonstrate "that the descriptions provided are insufficient for purposes of extracting or retrieving the requested document[s] from the virtual files through an electronic word search ... [read post]
23 Jan 2024, 11:28 am
M.A. v. [read post]
23 Jan 2024, 7:42 am
Indeed, in a 1983 case, Herrera v. [read post]
23 Jan 2024, 6:13 am
See Colyer v. [read post]
23 Jan 2024, 5:17 am
Vidal v. [read post]
22 Jan 2024, 3:28 am
Wojcik Law Firm, P.C. v Mull 2024 NY Slip Op 00060 Decided on January 09, 2024 Appellate Division, First Department is a legal fee claim with a guarantee twist. [read post]
21 Jan 2024, 10:00 pm
”In other words, that slapped that case, against the slapping nurse, shut.# # #DECISIONMatter of D. v Z. [read post]
21 Jan 2024, 6:00 am
The case is called O’Donnell v. [read post]
20 Jan 2024, 9:24 pm
Georgia appellate courts have recognized several discrete categories of conflicts of interest for the purposes of prosecutorial disqualification. [read post]
20 Jan 2024, 1:46 pm
In Parque Towers Developers, LLC v. [read post]
20 Jan 2024, 1:18 pm
” Meyer v. [read post]
20 Jan 2024, 7:25 am
But, a rule is a rule…no matter how inefficient. [read post]
19 Jan 2024, 9:18 am
Co. v. [read post]
19 Jan 2024, 9:16 am
Appellate history The First-tier Tribunal held in favour of the taxpayer. [read post]
19 Jan 2024, 4:00 am
”Because E.R. was unable to “carry her burden of proving that service was properly effected,” the AD1 left the outcome undisturbed, even though E.R. claimed to have informed the respondent of the proceeding’s pendency.Now that wasn’t fuzzy at all.# # #Matter of E.R. v S.C. [read post]
18 Jan 2024, 1:47 pm
However, on January 18, 2024, the Appellate Division decided the case of Roik v. [read post]
18 Jan 2024, 12:25 pm
In Imperial Oil Limited v. [read post]
18 Jan 2024, 10:03 am
" Jacobellis v. [read post]