Search for: "State v. Corker"
Results 81 - 100
of 109
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jun 2015, 2:04 pm
However, earlier this week, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-TN) told Secretary of State John Kerry to ignore the looming deadline, should it be necessary to get a better deal. [read post]
16 Jun 2015, 1:28 pm
Ryan Scoville discussed Congress’ role in international diplomacy, following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Zivotofsky v. [read post]
10 Mar 2015, 1:57 pm
Prominent Senate Republicans such as Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-TN) also voiced concern. [read post]
31 May 2014, 5:49 am
Mark Martins’ statements before a pre-trial motions hearing in the case of United States v. [read post]
1 Oct 2013, 1:29 pm
As First Tier Tribunal bedroom tax decisions go, this one is a corker. [read post]
1 Oct 2013, 1:29 pm
As First Tier Tribunal bedroom tax decisions go, this one is a corker. [read post]
9 Nov 2012, 5:31 am
(For contemporary illustrations of this point, see the interpretation recently promulgated by Bishop Mark Lawrence, or the statement of Bishop Shaw on gay marriage in his diocese, or the court's decision in the Dixon v. [read post]
13 Sep 2012, 2:56 am
To recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff is required to show that the defendant attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession, and that the attorney's breach of this duty caused the plaintiff to suffer actual and ascertainable damages (see Dombrowski v Bulson, 19 NY3d 347, 350; Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442; McCoy v Feinman, 99… [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 2:40 am
Spiegel v Rowland, 552 US 1257; see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442; McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301-302; Gioeli v Vlachos, 89 AD3d 984; Dempster v Liotti, 86 AD3d 169, 176). [read post]
30 May 2012, 3:28 am
As stated in Becker v. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 3:14 am
"The complaint failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice because the plaintiff neglected to plead that she would have prevailed in the underlying action, commenced in the Supreme Court, New York County, but for the defendants' alleged malpractice in failing to file certain motions and appeal from certain orders issued in that action (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442; Kuzmin… [read post]
22 Dec 2011, 3:10 am
Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438 442 (2007); Cummings v Donovan, 36 AD3d 648 (2 Dept 2007). [read post]
1 Dec 2011, 2:40 am
Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]; Bilin v. [read post]
22 Nov 2011, 3:03 am
While the DeCaro defendants contend that a rescission defense based on unilateral mistake would not have been successful in the underlying action for specific performance, specific performance may be denied based on unilateral mistake [*4]where the other party must have been aware of the mistake (see Da Silva v Musso, 53 NY2d 543, 548; Sheridan Drive-In v State of New York, 16 AD2d 400, 405; Harper, Inc. v City of Newburgh, 159 App Div 695, 696-697). [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 9:00 pm
Otherwise, the Supreme Court wrote in its 1992 case Quill Corp. v. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 2:29 am
Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d 438, 442 (2007), quoting McCoy v. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 2:36 am
Spiegel v Rowland, 552 US 1257; see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442). [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 1:48 am
State, 57 AD3d 83, 866 N.Y.S.2d 711 [2nd Dept., 2008]). [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 1:45 am
Guayara v Harry I. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 3:34 am
While the DeCaro defendants contend that a rescission defense based on unilateral mistake would not have been successful in the underlying action for specific performance, specific performance may be denied based on unilateral mistake [*4]where the other party must have been aware of the mistake (see Da Silva v Musso, 53 NY2d 543, 548; Sheridan Drive-In v State of New York, 16 AD2d 400, 405; Harper, Inc. v City of Newburgh, 159 App Div 695, 696-697). [read post]
