Search for: "State v. Martinez" Results 741 - 760 of 1,669
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Sep 2010, 6:01 am by David G. Badertscher
Benishai NEW YORK COUNTYCriminal Practice Denial of Parole Vacated, Remanded for New Hearing for False, 'Concocted' Scenario Matter of Galan-Martinez v. [read post]
22 Feb 2018, 8:04 am by Evan Lee
As I remarked in my argument preview, in light of the Supreme Court’s 6-2 decision for the petitioner in Molina-Martinez v. [read post]
8 Jun 2011, 6:11 am by Adam Chandler
” TIME and the Los Angeles Times cover the Court’s denial of certiorari on Monday in Martinez v. [read post]
6 Jun 2021, 4:08 pm by Francis Pileggi
For the most recent iteration of Delaware law on the topic of forum non conveniens, as it has evolved over the last few years, careful readers should be aware of the recent Chancery decision in Sweeny v. [read post]
2 Mar 2022, 4:18 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Therefore, at this stage, dismissal was not warranted under CPLR 3211(a)(7), or under CPLR 3211(a)(1), as defendant failed to provide documentary evidence that “conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law” (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]; Amsterdam Hospitality Group, LLC v Marshall-Alan Assoc., Inc., 120 AD3d 431, 432-433 [1st Dept 2014])” [read post]
23 May 2011, 6:26 am by James Bickford
Finally, David Savage of the Los Angeles Times reports on the pending petition in Martinez v. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 5:00 am by Erin Miller
United States (08-1394) - respondent's brief Health Care Service Corp. v. [read post]
7 Dec 2010, 12:50 am by Mike
Martinez for $910,000 for a residential rental property that was, "in a state of disrepair. [read post]
6 Jul 2011, 3:15 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
"Accepting the facts alleged in the second amended complaint as true, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d at 87-88), the second amended complaint states a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice (see Aranki v Goldman & Assoc., LLP, 34 AD3d 510). [read post]