Search for: "Matter of Smith v Smith"
Results 801 - 820
of 4,654
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Sep 2010, 5:22 am
Richard Smith, et al. v. [read post]
7 Nov 2019, 10:00 am
In Arthrex Inc. v. [read post]
20 Jul 2012, 9:49 am
The following response in our symposium on Kiobel v. [read post]
25 Nov 2015, 2:04 pm
In an unusual twist, though, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Inc. v. [read post]
14 May 2008, 1:43 am
Case Name: Holman v. [read post]
12 Dec 2022, 4:16 pm
[Last week's argument at the Supreme Court in 303 Creative v. [read post]
16 Jul 2024, 6:00 am
Decided and Entered:June 20, 2024 CV-23-1408 [*1]In the Matter of Tory Gallante, Petitioner, v Thomas P. [read post]
16 Jul 2024, 6:00 am
Decided and Entered:June 20, 2024 CV-23-1408 [*1]In the Matter of Tory Gallante, Petitioner, v Thomas P. [read post]
22 Nov 2024, 3:45 pm
We're trying to block the enforcement of the statute, relying on precedents such as Smith v. [read post]
13 Jan 2014, 4:02 am
As the judge, Stuart-Smith J said: "I would accept that, if damages were an inadequate remedy, the fact that the termination would cause irremediable damage by the destruction of the business would be a relevant matter when considering the balance of convenience, but that is a different question" (emphases added). [read post]
26 Oct 2018, 1:22 pm
Res. v. [read post]
12 May 2013, 8:51 am
Washington v. [read post]
3 Apr 2008, 9:15 am
The wackiness of Watson is not the result but the reasoning: Watson distinguishes rather than overrules Smith v. [read post]
17 Aug 2022, 2:15 pm
(Diaz v. [read post]
16 Feb 2007, 8:31 am
Smith v. [read post]
2 Oct 2018, 7:01 pm
Smith relied in part on the United States Supreme Court’s reasoning in Musacchio v. [read post]
29 Mar 2023, 4:39 pm
Smith. [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
"In determining what constitutes . . . compensation paid in anticipation of retirement, we must look to the substance of the transaction and not to what the parties may label it" (Matter of Green v Regan, 103 AD2d 878, 878-879 [3d Dept 1984]; see Matter of Smith v DiNapoli, 167 AD3d at 1210; Matter of Chichester v DiNapoli, 108 AD3d 924, 925 [3d Dept 2013]). [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
"In determining what constitutes . . . compensation paid in anticipation of retirement, we must look to the substance of the transaction and not to what the parties may label it" (Matter of Green v Regan, 103 AD2d 878, 878-879 [3d Dept 1984]; see Matter of Smith v DiNapoli, 167 AD3d at 1210; Matter of Chichester v DiNapoli, 108 AD3d 924, 925 [3d Dept 2013]). [read post]
20 May 2020, 4:00 am
Arconti v. [read post]