Search for: "Cohen v. Davis"
Results 101 - 120
of 316
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jun 2018, 9:01 pm
One of the most contentious cases of the Supreme Court’s term has been Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. [read post]
18 Aug 2023, 5:07 am
Pearson& Shapiro, 43 A.D.3d 1111, 843 N.Y.S.2d 143; Cohen v. [read post]
2 Jan 2019, 4:45 am
This claim fails because plaintiff’s various successor counsel had ample time and opportunity to make such a motion, and in fact one did (although it was purportedly abandoned) (see Davis v Cohen & Gresser, LLP, 160 AD3d 484, 487 [1st Dept 2018]). [read post]
27 Feb 2017, 4:23 am
The first is Packingham v. [read post]
22 Apr 2023, 8:28 am
Davis v. [read post]
23 Mar 2017, 9:01 pm
In Wallace v. [read post]
7 Sep 2022, 5:32 am
And so even if there was some malpractice, successor counsel had a chance to address it (Davis v Cohen & Gresser, LLP, 160 AD3d 484, 487, 74 NYS3d 534 [1st Dept 2018] [dismissing a legal malpractice claim where a successor counsel had sufficient time to protect plaintiff’s interests and failed to do so]). [read post]
12 Jul 2019, 4:21 am
The limitations period, however, may be tolled where there is a continuing attorney-client relationship pertaining specifically to the matter in which the attorney committed the alleged malpractice (see Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d 164, 168 [2001 ]), and where there was “a mutual understanding of need for further services in connection with that same subject matter” (Davis v Cohen & Gresser, LLP, 160 AD3d 484, 486 [1st Dept… [read post]
12 Jul 2019, 4:21 am
The limitations period, however, may be tolled where there is a continuing attorney-client relationship pertaining specifically to the matter in which the attorney committed the alleged malpractice (see Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d 164, 168 [2001 ]), and where there was “a mutual understanding of need for further services in connection with that same subject matter” (Davis v Cohen & Gresser, LLP, 160 AD3d 484, 486 [1st Dept… [read post]
12 Mar 2015, 9:01 pm
In Salazar v. [read post]
23 Sep 2010, 7:30 am
” Briefly: In commentary for the National Law Journal, Debra Katz and Michael Filoromo III preview Staub v. [read post]
12 Jun 2006, 4:54 am
Cohen, supra; Schlesinger v. [read post]
6 Oct 2016, 4:37 am
On Wednesday, the court heard argument in Salman v. [read post]
31 May 2010, 6:20 am
The majority instead has decided to dismiss a case over which we have jurisdiction, thereby violating the longstanding rule, dating back to Cohens v. [read post]
13 Feb 2013, 9:01 pm
In one case, Hollingsworth v. [read post]
4 Oct 2017, 9:01 pm
If we were to view it this way, the law would survive, according to cases like Ward v. [read post]
26 Mar 2015, 9:01 pm
And as the Supreme Court made clear 50 years ago in Brandenburg v. [read post]
28 Mar 2013, 9:01 pm
Supreme Court’s oral argument on Tuesday in Perry v. [read post]
23 Apr 2015, 9:01 pm
Such state laws are often called Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, or RFRAs—named and patterned after the federal RRFA adopted by Congress after the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Employment Division v. [read post]
24 Apr 2017, 4:03 am
Liza Carens and Scott Cohen preview the case for Cornell. [read post]
