Search for: "Friedman v. Friedman"
Results 541 - 560
of 2,043
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Dec 2008, 2:36 pm
Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, McGuire, ... [read post]
24 Dec 2017, 9:15 am
The identification of such defects was the basis for the recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision in State v. [read post]
24 Aug 2012, 12:44 am
Practice point: An exchange of e-mails may constitute an enforceable agreement if the writings include all of the agreement's essential terms, including the fee, or other cost, involved.Student note: The existence of the valid and enforceable fee agreement precludes the causes of action sounding in quasi contract.Case: Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP. v. [read post]
19 Dec 2007, 12:51 am
TOM, J.P., FRIEDMAN, GONZALEZ, SWEENY, KAVANAGH, ... [read post]
24 Jun 2009, 1:40 am
Tom, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, ... [read post]
28 Dec 2007, 1:02 am
Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Catterson, ... [read post]
18 Apr 2010, 8:53 pm
GMAC Mortgage Group, Inc., 417 F.3d 384 (3d Cir. 2005); Friedman v. [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 2:50 pm
Commonwealth v. [read post]
23 Nov 2009, 6:42 am
At Balkinization, Barry Friedman responds to Linda Greenhouse's article over the weekend in the New York Times' Opinionator. [read post]
7 Oct 2010, 2:50 pm
Friedman and Lithwick describe Maryland v. [read post]
21 Nov 2007, 3:26 am
The determination fixing the value of the defendants' services necessarily determined that there was no malpractice (see Blair v Bartlett, 75 NY 150, 154; Koppelmann v Finkelstein, 246 AD2d 365, 366; Altamore v Friedman, 193 AD2d at 246; Chisolm Ryder Co. v Sommer & Sommer, 78 AD2d 143, 145-146). [read post]
21 Nov 2007, 3:26 am
The determination fixing the value of the defendants' services necessarily determined that there was no malpractice (see Blair v Bartlett, 75 NY 150, 154; Koppelmann v Finkelstein, 246 AD2d 365, 366; Altamore v Friedman, 193 AD2d at 246; Chisolm Ryder Co. v Sommer & Sommer, 78 AD2d 143, 145-146). [read post]
19 Jan 2018, 3:55 am
Revenson, Michael Friedman. [read post]
4 Mar 2021, 7:34 am
Finally, in U.S. v. [read post]
4 Dec 2023, 7:30 am
Liberties Union v New York City Police Dept., 32 NY3d 556). ** See Chapter 96 of the Laws of 2020. *** There are statutory prohibitions to public disclosure of certain public records. [read post]
8 Jan 2013, 6:51 am
(See Self v. [read post]
4 Dec 2023, 7:30 am
Liberties Union v New York City Police Dept., 32 NY3d 556). ** See Chapter 96 of the Laws of 2020. *** There are statutory prohibitions to public disclosure of certain public records. [read post]
9 Jun 2014, 10:34 am
In Caceres v. [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 8:53 am
In Goicochea v. [read post]