Search for: "Good v. Good" Results 6801 - 6820 of 76,266
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Dec 2017, 9:04 pm by Andrew Trask
  So, with no further ado, here’s a taste of four ways in which class action lawyers have dealt with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Spokeo v. [read post]
23 Jul 2023, 10:32 am by Eric Goldman
Pornhub * Catching Up on Recent FOSTA Developments (None of Them Good) * Section 230 Preempts Claims Against Omegle–M.H. v. [read post]
17 May 2024, 12:29 pm by Josh Blackman
If something has been done for a long time, that is a good enough reason to keep doing it. [read post]
2 Oct 2017, 3:33 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
In Matter of Felzen v PEI Mussel Kitchen, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 31831(U) [Sup Ct, NY County Sept. 1, 2017], Felzen sued to dissolve the company that operates a pair of Manhattan seafood restaurants named Flex Mussels, based upon allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, looting and oppression – frequent grounds for dissolution under Section 1104-a of the Business Corporation Law. [read post]
2 Oct 2017, 3:33 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
In Matter of Felzen v PEI Mussel Kitchen, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 31831(U) [Sup Ct, NY County Sept. 1, 2017], Felzen sued to dissolve the company that operates a pair of Manhattan seafood restaurants named Flex Mussels, based upon allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, looting and oppression – frequent grounds for dissolution under Section 1104-a of the Business Corporation Law. [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 8:07 pm by Garry J. Wise, Wise Law Office, Toronto
Do they want someone who respects precedent, or someone who will vote to overturn Roe v. [read post]
8 Feb 2010, 5:25 am by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use: Arnold v. [read post]
10 Nov 2008, 6:17 am
A New York case gives another good example of why to get and keep a lawyer for a divorce. [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 11:53 am by Nathan Cortez
Good lawyers can always conjure up and deploy a good analogy. [read post]
30 Aug 2024, 2:32 am by Alessandro Cerri
 Subsection (1) does not apply where there exist legitimate reasons for the proprietor to oppose further dealings in the goods (in particular, where the condition of the goods has been changed or impaired after they have been put on the market). [read post]