Search for: "GILBERT v GILBERT"
Results 681 - 700
of 1,093
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 May 2021, 9:06 am
GILBERT SANCHEZ v. [read post]
7 Sep 2007, 10:43 am
State of Indiana (NFP) Jamel Gilbert v. [read post]
1 May 2019, 4:31 am
The “continuous representation doctrine tolls the statute of limitations … where there is a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim” (Zorn v Gilbert, 8 NY3d 933, 934 [2007], quoting McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 306 [2002]; see also Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d 164, 167-168 [2001J). [read post]
14 Sep 2020, 6:12 am
In Barr v. [read post]
23 Mar 2008, 10:33 am
Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-09 (1947)). [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 3:44 am
Wade, Gilbert v. [read post]
27 Dec 2012, 6:27 pm
Shuck v. [read post]
20 Dec 2019, 7:37 am
Jones v. [read post]
2 Aug 2009, 10:27 pm
., et al. v. [read post]
22 Jun 2023, 8:29 am
1 Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P. v. [read post]
24 Mar 2011, 5:00 am
SEC v. [read post]
22 May 2011, 9:51 pm
That judgment also considered the earlier Court of Appeal decision of Clarkson v Gilbert [2000] 2 FLR 839. [read post]
9 Dec 2009, 7:04 am
(Kotla v. [read post]
23 May 2007, 4:37 am
Case Name: Negrette v. [read post]
17 Sep 2018, 3:13 am
Co. v. [read post]
5 Sep 2016, 7:43 am
See Town of Gilbert Prosecutor’s Office v. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 4:40 am
However, legal malpractice claims which would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations are timely if the doctrine of continuous representation applies (see Glamm v Allen, 57 NY2d 87, 91-94 [1982]; Alizio v Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., 126 AD3d 733, 735 [2015]; Farage v Ehrenberg, 124 AD3d at 164), in which case the three-year statute of limitations is tolled for the period following the alleged malpractice “until the attorney’s continuing… [read post]
27 May 2018, 8:34 pm
” The reason for this, as explained in Gilbert v. [read post]
20 Feb 2018, 3:55 am
Davis & Gilbert, LLP, 126 AD3d 656, 656 (1st Dep’t 2015); Stackpole v. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 2:39 am
Accordingly, the legal malpractice claims should not have been dismissed since Levinson failed to establish that they were time-barred (see Zorn v Gilbert, 8 NY3d 933, 934; 730 J & J, LLC v Polizzotto & Polizzotto, Esqs., 69 AD3d 704; Town of Wallkill v Rosenstein, 40 AD3d 972, 974). [read post]
