Search for: "Cook v. Banks"
Results 61 - 80
of 368
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 May 2009, 4:13 am
The significance of this has been explored in a number of authorities including in particular ABB Lummus Global v Keppel Fels Ltd [1999] 2 LLR 24, C v D [2007] EWHC 1541 (at first instance) and [2007] EWCA CIV 1282 (in the Court of Appeal), Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC v Paymentech [2001] 1 LLR 65 and Braes of Doune v Alfred McAlpine [2008] EWHC 426. [read post]
11 Jun 2019, 3:00 am
Bank of America v. [read post]
26 Jan 2012, 5:16 pm
(quoting Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. [read post]
6 Jun 2011, 2:38 am
Co. of Hartford v Cook, 7 NY3d 131, 137 [2006]). [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 3:47 am
Co. of Hartford v Cook, 7 NY3d 131, 137 [2006]). [read post]
20 Jan 2018, 1:51 am
The case, Peffer v. [read post]
2 Oct 2018, 3:00 am
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. [read post]
15 Mar 2011, 12:39 pm
"The substance of the federal preemption analysis hasn't changed at all," said Robert Cook, a partner at Hudson Cook. [read post]
19 Nov 2019, 2:00 am
Access Realty Group, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2007, 11:40 pm
His attorney neglected to bring a direct appeal, although Hardin now claims that it was his desire to do so. 07a0106p.06 2007/03/21 Cook v. [read post]
25 Jan 2016, 5:00 am
Drexler, 408 Ill.App.3d 392, 402 (1st Dist. 2011), quoting Edens Plaza Bank v. [read post]
26 Aug 2014, 8:03 am
Chicago Housing Authority v. 3721-3723 Elston Condominium and Tera Healy, 2014 IL App (1st) 130626-U (May 23, 2014). [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 10:24 am
Schwartzwald and Bank of America v. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 2:24 am
But the problem here was that, even if that were their intention, "It cannot be open to the parties to litigation to agree in advance with each other that they will procure an order from the court, but that the order will not in fact produce the legal effect it would ordinarily do" (at [34] - in passing, it would be interesting to know if Tinsley v Milligan was cited to HHJ Cooke but that is neither here nor there, I guess); they could always make an arrangement after the… [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 2:24 am
But the problem here was that, even if that were their intention, "It cannot be open to the parties to litigation to agree in advance with each other that they will procure an order from the court, but that the order will not in fact produce the legal effect it would ordinarily do" (at [34] - in passing, it would be interesting to know if Tinsley v Milligan was cited to HHJ Cooke but that is neither here nor there, I guess); they could always make an arrangement after the… [read post]
1 Oct 2014, 10:30 am
Camasta v. [read post]
18 Jan 2016, 6:22 am
Timothy O’Malley v. [read post]
2 Jun 2015, 2:18 pm
P. 166a(b), (c); Frost Nat'l Bank v. [read post]
25 Jul 2008, 11:12 am
" People v. [read post]
29 Jun 2018, 6:04 am
Tørsløv and Ludvig S. [read post]
