Search for: "State v. Brooks" Results 621 - 640 of 2,168
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Sep 2017, 4:14 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
These factual allegations, as supplemented by plaintiffs’ papers in opposition to defendant attorney’s dismissal motion, sufficiently alleged a legal malpractice claim (see generally Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; see Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006]; Escape Airports [USA], Inc. v Kent, Beatty & Gordon, LLP, 79 AD3d 437 [1st Dept 2010]). [read post]
20 Feb 2018, 7:26 am by William Ford
Supreme Court last cited one of its pieces in McDonald v. [read post]
7 Nov 2010, 10:20 am by Dave Hoffman
  Yale hosted CELS V, and the committee did a bang up job: the food was tasty; there were no technical snafus of note; and the panels appeared to have a high degree of internal validity & congruence. [read post]
24 Aug 2023, 4:28 pm by Tobias Lutzi
The volume on The Common Law Jurisprudence of the Conflict of Laws, edited by Sarah McKibbin (University of Southern Queensland) and Anthony Kennedy (Serle Court), recently published by Hart, does just that, by discussing cases like Vita Food Products, Brook v Brook, Bonython v Commonwealth of Australia, AG v Heinemann Publishers (better known as the Australian Spycatcher case), Bremen v Zapata, Vizcaya v Picard, and Kuwait Airways (Nos… [read post]
7 Jun 2007, 11:06 am
Brooks, who was publicly admonished last year for his courtroom manner, after previous, private admonishments, was sharply criticized in an opinion issue last Friday, and published on Monday by the 4th District Court of Appeal, overturning a defense verdict in the case of Haluck v. [read post]
7 Jan 2008, 11:03 pm
Brooks, 343 F.3d 868, 877-78 (6th Cir.2003) (concluding that no penological interest or security concern justifies opening attorney mail outside prisoner's presence when prisoner requested otherwise); Bieregu v. [read post]