Search for: "DOE v. USA" Results 661 - 680 of 3,739
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Oct 2021, 3:44 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
On this record, triable issues of fact exist as to whether, but for defendant’s failure to inform plaintiff’s principal that it could be locked into the sale agreement in perpetuity if it did not obtain municipal approval for redevelopment, it would not have entered into the contract as written and would have avoided litigation with the buyer who sued for specific performance (see Leggiadro, Ltd. v Winston & Strawn, LLP, 151 AD3d 413 [1st Dept 2017]; Escape… [read post]
24 Aug 2007, 8:03 am
I was gambling in Havana; I took a little risk: Pernod Ricard USA LLC v. [read post]
Though this requirement does not apply to Crown employees, the USA does not qualify as a Crown employer. [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 3:00 am by John L. Welch
Of course, even with consent, such an amendment will be accepted only if it does not materially alter the mark. [read post]
14 Apr 2010, 12:00 pm by Kenneth J. Vanko
Last year, I wrote a not-too-flattering piece on a Texas case where the appellate court in Dallas held that a grant of stock options does not constitute sufficient consideration for an employee non-compete agreement. [read post]