Search for: "Burrows v. Burrows"
Results 81 - 100
of 292
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jul 2017, 7:54 am
Do you remember Zarda v. [read post]
2 Dec 2007, 12:08 pm
" McNally v. [read post]
2 Aug 2012, 10:48 am
Clayes, 72 S.W.2d 833, (MO Ct App 1934) and was recently revisited in Burrows v. [read post]
22 Apr 2008, 1:58 pm
Rogers [1999] 32 HLR 361 and indeed Burrows v. [read post]
13 Apr 2023, 4:19 am
The main decision in this regard is Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v Sarony where the US Supreme Court confirmed that an author is “he to whom anything owes its origin; originator; maker; one who completes a work of science or literature”, which specifically can only be a human author. [read post]
13 Apr 2023, 4:19 am
The main decision in this regard is Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v Sarony where the US Supreme Court confirmed that an author is “he to whom anything owes its origin; originator; maker; one who completes a work of science or literature”, which specifically can only be a human author. [read post]
20 Jul 2022, 4:37 am
Lord Burrows sets out the correct modern approach to statutory interpretation, which is that the court is concerned to identify the meaning of the words used by Parliament, and in so doing, the context and purpose of the provision or provisions are important. [read post]
5 May 2024, 7:44 pm
Supreme Court’s 1884 opinion in Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company v. [read post]
19 Jul 2022, 3:30 am
” For a slightly more detailed explanation, I’ll defer to Commissioner Lucas: “[EEOC] Chair Burrows unilaterally issued the ‘technical assistance’ document addressing the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. [read post]
18 Apr 2024, 6:15 am
The Office also relies heavily on Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. [read post]
26 Mar 2024, 2:38 am
Following the decision of the House of Lords, in Macmillan Inc v. [read post]
12 Oct 2009, 4:55 pm
App. 1993); Burrows v. [read post]
15 Jul 2014, 3:19 pm
Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. [read post]
29 Sep 2020, 7:50 pm
“Moreover, the plaintiff failed to plead specific factual allegations showing that, had he not settled, he would have obtained a more favorable outcome” (Schiller v Bender, Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d 756, 758; see Keness v Feldman, Kramer & Monaco, P.C., 105 AD3d at 813; Tortura v Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C.,21 AD3d at 1083; Dweck Law Firm v Mann, 283 AD2d 292, 293; Rau v Borenkoff,262 AD2d at… [read post]
17 Apr 2023, 5:20 am
“The fact that the plaintiff subsequently was unhappy with the settlement [she] obtained . . . does not rise to the level of legal malpractice” (Katsoris v Bodnar & Milone, LLP, 186 AD3d at 1506 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Schiller v Bender, Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d 756, 758; Holschauer v Fisher, 5 AD3d 553, 554). [read post]
12 Nov 2020, 6:48 am
C v D [2007] EWCA Civ 1282). [read post]
5 Jun 2023, 3:43 am
The plaintiffs’ “hindsight criticism of counsels’ reasonable course of action . . . does not rise to the level of legal malpractice” (Schiller v Bender, Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d at 758 [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]). [read post]
9 Feb 2022, 6:06 am
Here, the plaintiff’s conclusory allegations were insufficient to state a cause of action alleging violation of Judiciary Law § 487 (see Klein v Rieff, 135 AD3d 910, 912 [2016]; Schiller v Bender, Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d 756, 759 [2014]). [read post]
14 Jun 2007, 5:21 am
" The majority in Miller specifically distinguished that case from the case of Burrows v. [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 9:15 pm
Fish & Game v. [read post]
