Search for: "State v. Cohen"
Results 81 - 100
of 2,315
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Nov 2023, 5:33 am
I also think the Supreme Court was right in Cohen v. [read post]
13 Nov 2023, 4:07 am
Another is Barone v Sowers, 128 AD3d 484, 10 N.Y.S.3d 2 [read post]
8 Nov 2023, 4:02 pm
” Cohen v. [read post]
8 Nov 2023, 1:48 pm
In State v. [read post]
6 Nov 2023, 1:11 am
On 1 and 2 November 2023, the UK Supreme court (Lords Reed, Sales, Hamblen, Burrows and Richards) heard the appeal in the case of Mueen-Uddin v Secretary of State for the Home Department. [read post]
4 Nov 2023, 9:09 pm
As of July 18, 2023, a total of 10 outbreak-associated cases of hepatitis A have been reported from four states (CA (2), HI (1), OR (1), WA (6)). [read post]
3 Nov 2023, 4:57 am
(Peter Mensch v Louise Mensch, NYSCEF index no. 309381/2017.) [read post]
30 Oct 2023, 5:30 pm
In United States v. [read post]
27 Oct 2023, 3:17 pm
Hashim v. [read post]
24 Oct 2023, 6:49 pm
” United States v. [read post]
23 Oct 2023, 6:20 am
Steering Comm., Inc. v Cohen, Weiss & Simon, 227 AD2d 130, 131 [1st Dept 1996]; see also Klingsberg v Council of Sch. [read post]
23 Oct 2023, 4:44 am
” Emmons v. [read post]
20 Oct 2023, 6:00 am
The US Supreme Court granted certiorari to answer that question in Corner Post v. [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 9:23 am
" In Regan v. [read post]
4 Oct 2023, 7:29 am
Expand all Collapse all Relevant State Court Proceedings State of New York v. [read post]
1 Oct 2023, 12:42 pm
A couple of quick notes on cases that have been sitting a browser tabs in my ‘to do’ window for far too long… Daff v Gyalui & Aiach-Cohen (2023) UKUT 134 (LC) Ms Daff had been ordered to pay an RRO for an unlicensed property to the tenants in the amount of £22,230, being 100% of rent for 9 months. [read post]
26 Sep 2023, 5:10 pm
See Banks v. [read post]
23 Sep 2023, 11:26 am
Cohen v Apple, Inc, 46 F. 4th 1012 (4th Cir. 2022), Certiorari denied 143 S.Ct. 2513, U.S. [read post]
20 Sep 2023, 5:29 am
In his opposition affidavit, David states that he has no recollection of receiving it, and Singer’s claim that the letter was mailed does not give rise to the presumption of receipt, as he does not present evidence of defendant firm’s office practices pertinent to mailing (see Lindsay v Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano LLP, 129 AD3d 790, 793 [2d Dept 2015]; Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein, LLP v Brophy, 19 AD3d 161, 162 [1 st… [read post]
