Search for: "State v. Bender"
Results 41 - 60
of 243
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Aug 2009, 5:01 am
United States v. [read post]
18 Jul 2019, 1:55 pm
In Knox-Bender v. [read post]
27 Dec 2010, 9:06 am
That is, a client must establish "actual and ascertainable damaes" (Boone v Bender, 74 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citations ommitted]; see Ehlinger v Ruberti, Girvin & Ferlazzo, 304 AD2d 925, 926 [2003]) that would not have occurred "but for" the attorney's conduct (Boone v Bender, 74 AD3d at 1113; see Ulico Cas. [read post]
21 Nov 2007, 2:32 pm
By Eric Goldman Burgess v. [read post]
18 Jul 2019, 1:55 pm
In Knox-Bender v. [read post]
18 Jun 2022, 8:41 am
Patent Owner SynQor appeals, asking this court to vacate the Board’s decision rejecting claims 49 and 50 of the ’021 patent pursuant to United States v. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 8:25 am
& A. 1932) (stating same); 29 Appleman on Insurance 2d § 180.12[C], at 567 (Matthew Bender 2006) (“Entitlement to policy proceeds on the beneficiary’s predecease of the insured follows the vested character of the interest. [read post]
27 Nov 2017, 4:00 am
Bender; articles by Michael Kaufman, Steven A. [read post]
29 Jan 2025, 5:00 am
In the case of McGee v. [read post]
23 Apr 2025, 11:00 pm
In the case of Surefire Dividend Capture, L.P. v. [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 4:45 pm
However, the Louisiana Supreme Court recently abrogated the Knighten Rule in State v. [read post]
14 Feb 2008, 12:03 am
On this Valentine's Day, I thought I'd pick up the theme from the Business Week article and take a look at an example, courtesy of the 7th Circuit's decision in Benders v. [read post]
19 Nov 2012, 9:27 am
In its recent decision in the case of Buckman v. [read post]
11 Apr 2010, 6:32 pm
The Southern District of New York stated that it was “awarding [the defendant] its fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 9:54 pm
On 1/27/14 the United States Supreme Court decided Burrage v. [read post]
8 Aug 2011, 10:11 am
However, a well respected treatise on Washington insurance law subsequently criticized this aspect of Holly Mountain as being inconsistent with the principles stated in Tank v. [read post]
4 Dec 2020, 4:00 am
Citing Bender v New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., 38 NY2d 662, the Appellate Division explained that the Doctrine of Estoppel "is only applicable to a government agency when the agency acts or comports itself wrongfully or negligently, inducing reliance by a party who changes his or her position to his or her detriment or prejudice. [read post]
4 Dec 2020, 4:00 am
Citing Bender v New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., 38 NY2d 662, the Appellate Division explained that the Doctrine of Estoppel "is only applicable to a government agency when the agency acts or comports itself wrongfully or negligently, inducing reliance by a party who changes his or her position to his or her detriment or prejudice. [read post]
25 Nov 2014, 12:13 pm
In Shelby County v. [read post]
15 Jun 2010, 6:46 am
The recent case of Smith v. [read post]
