Search for: "Phillips v. Smith"
Results 61 - 80
of 355
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Jun 2021, 12:22 pm
• Roger V. [read post]
26 Mar 2021, 3:18 am
”‘ (Phillips-Smith Specialty Retail Group II, 265 AD2d at 210.) [read post]
8 Jan 2021, 3:30 am
As the IAS court found, the allegations underlying plaintiff’s malpractice claim were couched in terms of “gross speculations” about future events, without the requisite factual basis to support the allegation (see Phillips-Smith Specialty Retail Group II v Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl, 265 AD2d 208, 210 [1st Dept 1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 759 [2000]). [read post]
6 Jan 2021, 3:11 am
Olsen v Smith 2020 NY Slip Op 06214 [187 AD3d 675] October 29, 2020 Appellate Division, First Department is a familiar trope. [read post]
15 Dec 2020, 8:30 am
Smith (Emory), Alexander Volokh (Emory), Camilla E. [read post]
21 Nov 2020, 4:11 pm
Zhao v. [read post]
17 Nov 2020, 7:40 pm
” (Mooppan referred to Pena-Rodriguez v. [read post]
17 Nov 2020, 6:43 am
Here’s a round-up of other Supreme Court-related news and commentary from around the web: Biden’s Top SCOTUS Lawyer Should Be Woman, Court Watchers Say (Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson & Jess Bravin, Bloomberg Law) Supreme Court Rejects Texas Inmates’ Plea for Stronger Health Measures (Jess Bravin, The Wall Street Journal) Smith Has Got to Go (James Phillips, National Review) Supreme Court Declines Appeal Backed by Illinois School Districts on Tax Remedies (Mark… [read post]
12 Nov 2020, 8:18 pm
[He talked about COVID and Religious Liberty, the Second Amendment, Free Speech, and "Bullying" of the Supreme Court by U.S. [read post]
6 Nov 2020, 5:02 am
Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which rested on "religious hostility on the part of the State itself," and specifically on "the Commission's consideration of Phillips' case," which the Court held "was neither tolerant nor respectful of Phillips' religious beliefs. [read post]
5 Nov 2020, 11:54 am
" Mooppan cited Pena–Rodriguez v. [read post]
2 Aug 2020, 4:58 am
See, e.g., Smith v. [read post]
25 Jul 2020, 3:44 pm
Smith for their insightful critiques of my book, Gay Rights v. [read post]
25 Jul 2020, 12:21 am
See Smith, 494 U. [read post]
10 Jul 2020, 4:11 am
Sineneng-Smith, which the court decided in May. [read post]
26 May 2020, 10:29 am
Phillips (N.Y. [read post]
13 May 2020, 3:46 am
Mazars and Trump v. [read post]
16 Jan 2020, 3:00 am
In the non-precedential case of Phillips v. [read post]
9 Dec 2019, 3:01 am
Smith — Again” [Joseph Davis, Becket/Federalist Society on certiorari petition in Ricks v. [read post]
21 Nov 2019, 4:27 am
In [*2]addition, a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, in itself, does not give rise to a private cause of action against an attorney or law firm (see Cohen v Kachroo, 115 AD3d 512, 513; DeStaso v Condon Resnick, LLP, 90 AD3d 809, 814; Kallman v Krupnick, 67 AD3d 1093, 1096; Weintraub v Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim, & Ballon, 172 AD2d 254, 254). [read post]
