Search for: "See v. See" Results 6121 - 6140 of 122,004
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Aug 2017, 4:43 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
” “Plaintiff cannot show that defendant’s alleged deceits were the proximate cause of any injury, except perhaps “excess legal expenses” incurred in the Apollo action (see Melcher v Greenberg Traurig LLP, 135 AD3d 547, 554 [Pt Dept 2016]; see also Zimmerman v Kohn, 125 AD3d 413 [1st Dept 2015] [cited in Melcher]). [read post]
4 May 2007, 2:56 am
Apr. 30, 2007), that determination is necessarily based on underlying factual inquiries, see WinnerInt'l Royalty Corp. v. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 4:30 am
 (Editors’ Note: See the CAFA Law Blog analysis of Anthony v. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 10:28 am by Eugene Volokh
Humanitarian Law Project; you can see it here.] [read post]
9 Jul 2008, 12:22 pm
"Although the evidence or contraband seized during a search cannot justify, ex post facto, the legality of the search, see State v. [read post]
14 Sep 2013, 10:12 am by Jeff Redding
In my previous two posts on the ‘2 v. 3' debate (see here and here), I have tried to suggest that participants in this debate need to give more consideration to how law schools—along with undergraduate institutions or, perhaps, despite undergraduate institutions—contribute to a liberal arts education. [read post]