Search for: "Allen v. Allen" Results 901 - 920 of 4,350
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Aug 2019, 4:05 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
It is well settled that “[a] cause of action for legal malpractice accrues when the malpractice is committed” (Elstein v Phillips Lytle, LLP, 108 AD3d 1073, 1073 [4th Dept 2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]), and that, “[w]hat is important [in determining the accrual date] is when the malpractice was committed, not when the client discovered it” (Glamm v Allen, 57 NY2d 87, 95 [1982]; see Town of Amherst v Weiss, 120 AD3d 1550,… [read post]
23 Jul 2019, 2:55 pm by Mark Murakami
While we are slowly migrating this blog as part of a rebranding, we could not pass up the opportunity to delve into one of the legal aspects of the ongoing discourse over the Thirty Meter Telescope (artistic rendering below). [read post]
23 Jul 2019, 2:55 pm by Mark Murakami
While we are slowly migrating this blog as part of a rebranding, we could not pass up the opportunity to delve into one of the legal aspects of the ongoing discourse over the Thirty Meter Telescope (artistic rendering below). [read post]
7 Jul 2019, 7:50 am by Mitu Gulati
Sovereign debt guru and Allen & Overy partner, Yannis Manuelides has a new paper (here) out on the “local law advantage” in Euro area sovereign bonds. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 6:03 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Plaintiff did not allege “actual, ascertainable damages” incurred by plaintiff’s decedent “as a result of an attorney’s negligence” (Dempster v Liotti, 86 AD3d 169, 177 [1st Dept 2011]; see Humbert v Allen, 89 AD3d 804, 806 [2d Dept 2011]). [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 6:03 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Plaintiff did not allege “actual, ascertainable damages” incurred by plaintiff’s decedent “as a result of an attorney’s negligence” (Dempster v Liotti, 86 AD3d 169, 177 [1st Dept 2011]; see Humbert v Allen, 89 AD3d 804, 806 [2d Dept 2011]). [read post]
26 Jun 2019, 3:58 am by Edith Roberts
” At Allen Matkins, Keith Bishop notes that the decision “almost certainly invalidates California’s ban [on immoral and scandalous marks] as well. [read post]