Search for: "-LRA Wells v. King" Results 721 - 740 of 3,279
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Jun 2020, 5:55 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“Proximate cause requires a showing that ‘but for’ the attorney’s negligence, the plaintiff would . . . not have sustained any ascertainable damages” (Barbara King Family Trust v Voluto Ventures LLC, 46 AD3d 423, 424 [1st Dept 2007]). [read post]
7 Jun 2020, 1:17 am by Schachtman
In sum, there is support for the proposition that medical screenings, as well as the actual diagnoses of disease, constitute the “practice of medicine” subject to state regulation. [read post]
5 Jun 2020, 3:00 am by Jim Sedor
Campaign Funds for Judges Warp Criminal Justice, Study Finds New York Times – Adam Liptak | Published: 6/1/2020 In Gideon v. [read post]
2 Jun 2020, 12:58 pm by Eugene Volokh
That notion was well embedded in American law by the time of Texas v. [read post]
26 May 2020, 4:17 pm by INFORRM
Two claims had been brought in Northern Ireland, neither of which were successful: King v Sunday Newspapers Ltd [2010] NIQB 107, Fulton v Sunday Newspapers Ltd [2015] NIQB 100. [read post]
18 May 2020, 6:15 am by Neil Cahn
Lauren B., Kings County Family Court Judge Javier E. [read post]
17 May 2020, 4:39 pm by INFORRM
The operator of E-Station, a supplier of EV charging equipment, is seeking $350,000 in general damages as well as aggravated and special damages, his claim filed in the federal court states. [read post]
13 May 2020, 3:26 pm by Jackie McDermott
It’s very sort of counter-constitutional and the kind of thing that they worried about with the king back when they were in the British empire. [read post]
11 May 2020, 5:41 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
  in Postiglione v Sacks & Sacks, LLP  2020 NY Slip Op 31164(U) April 17, 2020 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 513779/2019 Judge: Edgar G. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]