Search for: "Davis v. Morris" Results 41 - 60 of 152
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Nov 2010, 6:56 am by Bexis
”  Id. at *7 (quoting Davis, with our emphasis).Reliance, not causation.In fact, subsequent decisions have criticized whether Davis gave “fair consideration” to the causation element of FDUTPA (including a case we worked on, Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Oct 2008, 10:29 pm
Gregory The Significance of Sprint/United Management Company v. [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 10:30 am by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
., Queens Keiyne Jackson Morris Houses, 1451 Washington Ave., 16th fl., Bronx Calvin James Howard Houses, 1550 E New York Ave., 4th fl., Brooklyn Jose Maldonado Bushwick/Hylan Houses, 140 Moore St., 1st fl., Brooklyn Kevin McBride Nostrand/Sheepshead Houses, 3044 Avenue V, 4th fl., Brooklyn Michael McNeil a/k/a Ivan McNeil Van Dyke Houses, 429 Dumont Ave., 3rd fl., Brooklyn Jesus Miranda Cypress Hills Houses, 305 Fountain Ave., 3rd… [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 12:40 pm by John Elwood
The Court also listed two cases for this Thursday’s Conference after extended holds:  Philip Morris USA Inc v. [read post]
27 Nov 2009, 6:33 am by Jon Hyman
Wage & Hour Financial Service Workers May Be Glorified "Production Workers" Who Are Entitled to Overtime -- Davis v. [read post]
22 Dec 2009, 3:26 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The aspects of the contingency fee retainer agreement prepared by defendants and signed by plaintiff that allegedly render it noncompliant with 22 NYCRR 1215.1 do not bar defendants from recovering in quantum meruit (see Seth Rubenstein, P.C. v Ganea, 41 AD3d 54, 60-64 [2007]; see also Egnotovich v Katten Muchin Zavis & Roseman LLP, 55 AD3d 462, 464 [2008]; Nicoll & Davis LLP v Ainetchi, 52 AD3d 412 [2008]). [read post]
22 Feb 2011, 7:02 am by PaulKostro
Davis, 116 N.J. 341, 361 (1989), superseded by constitutional amendment and statute on other grounds, as recognized in State v. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
Parke, Davis & Co., 256 F.3d 1013, 1021 (10th Cir. 2001) (wrong to “construe [a treater’s] ‘heeding’ an adequate warning to mean [s/he] would have given the warning”) (applying Oklahoma law); In re Diet Drug Litigation, 895 A.2d 480, 490-91 (N.J. [read post]
20 Oct 2017, 6:12 am by SHG
Tweets • Morris Davis (Mar. 12, 2016) • Bryan A. [read post]