Search for: "DAVIS v. DAVIS" Results 681 - 700 of 8,978
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Jun 2022, 3:11 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“An attorney may not be held liable for failing to act outside the scope of a retainer” (Attallah v Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, LLP, 168 AD3d 1026, 1028 [2d Dept 2019]; see AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 NY3d 428, 435 [2007]). [read post]
17 Jun 2022, 9:08 pm by Public Employment Law Press
Matter of Newman v City of Tonawanda 2022 NY Slip Op 03834 Decided on June 10, 2022 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. [read post]
17 Jun 2022, 9:08 pm by Public Employment Law Press
Matter of Newman v City of Tonawanda 2022 NY Slip Op 03834 Decided on June 10, 2022 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. [read post]
17 Jun 2022, 2:09 pm by admin
  Ever since the United States Supreme Court decided Daubert v. [read post]
17 Jun 2022, 3:44 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
” “It is well settled that “[a]n attorney may not be held liable for failing to act outside the scope of the retainer” (Genesis Merchant Partners, L.P. v Gilbride, Tusa, Last & Spellane, LLC, 157 AD3d 479,482 [1st Dept 2018], citingAmbase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardell, 8 NY3d 428 [2007]). [read post]
15 Jun 2022, 2:57 pm by Kara Simon and Chris Skelton
The Court has also found that Title IX requires schools to reasonably address sexual harassment by both teachers and students (Davis v. [read post]
13 Jun 2022, 12:39 am by INFORRM
On 9 June 2022, the trial of preliminary issues in the case of The Duke of Sussex v Associated Newspapers was held before Nicklin J. [read post]
11 Jun 2022, 12:26 pm by Eugene Volokh
This is evident, for instance, in the fact that all the Supreme Court's sexual harassment cases have been nonpseudonymous (except Davis as next friend of LaShonda D. v. [read post]
8 Jun 2022, 6:42 pm by Howard M. Wasserman
The court rejects Boule’s argument that a First Amendment retaliation claim is similar to the employment-discrimination claim the court allowed in Davis v. [read post]
7 Jun 2022, 10:32 am by Roger Parloff
In that statute, Congress exercised its power under Section 3 to lift the disabilities that the provision had imposed upon large categories of Confederate officers and officials—in essence, all but the highest-ranking ones, like Confederate president Jefferson Davis. [read post]