Search for: "Walsh v. Walsh"
Results 41 - 60
of 1,706
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Sep 2023, 5:29 am
In his opposition affidavit, David states that he has no recollection of receiving it, and Singer’s claim that the letter was mailed does not give rise to the presumption of receipt, as he does not present evidence of defendant firm’s office practices pertinent to mailing (see Lindsay v Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano LLP, 129 AD3d 790, 793 [2d Dept 2015]; Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein, LLP v Brophy, 19 AD3d 161, 162 [1 st Dept… [read post]
13 Sep 2023, 6:20 am
The case, Persian Broadcast Service Global, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Sep 2023, 6:41 am
In Holzmer v. [read post]
6 Sep 2023, 12:28 pm
More broadly, Bruen instructed lower courts to decide Second Amendment cases the way that Court had decided District of Columbia v. [read post]
10 Aug 2023, 2:00 pm
The complaint (full text) in Burke v. [read post]
18 Jul 2023, 5:00 pm
Utah v. [read post]
18 Jul 2023, 6:00 am
Matter of DeNigris v Smithtown Cent. [read post]
18 Jul 2023, 6:00 am
Matter of DeNigris v Smithtown Cent. [read post]
12 Jul 2023, 7:20 am
Blue v. [read post]
3 Jul 2023, 8:16 am
In this post, Anna Walsh (Partner) and Nicole Ellerby (Associate) in CMS’ defendant medical malpractice team consider the awaited decision from the Supreme Court in the Scottish case of McCulloch and Ors v Forth Valley Health Board [2021] CSIH 21. [read post]
27 Jun 2023, 2:30 am
By Véronique Li, Senior Medical Device Regulation Expert & Anne K. [read post]
26 Jun 2023, 4:36 pm
Schutte v. [read post]
21 Jun 2023, 9:05 pm
In Chevron v. [read post]
16 Jun 2023, 1:29 am
In this post, Isabel Emerson, Senior Associate, and Anna Walsh, Partner, in the Clinical Risk and Medical Advisory and Professional Discipline and Regulatory team at CMS preview the decision awaited from the Supreme Court in Paul and another v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust (2) Polmear and Anor v Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust and (3) Purchase v Ahmed These three conjoined appeals were heard by the Supreme Court on 16 – 18 May 2023. [read post]
15 Jun 2023, 6:17 am
Walsh, and Paul C. [read post]
29 May 2023, 8:48 pm
In Lee v Park, the plaintiff’s complaint alleged that in 2013, the two defendants who owned the business orally agreed that [read post]
14 May 2023, 1:31 pm
This is demonstrated, for example, by analysis of Chief Justice Vaughan's opinion in Thomas v. [read post]
4 May 2023, 9:05 pm
It is a common refrain, mostly on the political right, that considering environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) factors when investing is probably illegal.[1] The basis for this argument derives from the fiduciary duty of loyalty and its corollary, the “sole interest” or “exclusive benefit” rule, enshrined in both federal and state law, which prohibits fiduciaries from investing for any purpose other than the financial well-being of the beneficiary. [read post]
1 May 2023, 4:36 am
Not according to a recent decision from the California Appellate Courts, Crane v R. [read post]
7 Apr 2023, 4:45 am
Father Benedict Mawn v 89. [read post]
