Search for: "Mintz v. Mintz"
Results 101 - 120
of 247
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 May 2018, 4:14 am
Given especially that Elting was granted a TRO, the payroll access misstatements, which we have determined to be immaterial, “were not sufficiently egregious to support this claim” of § 487 violation (Mintz v Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff, LLP, 53 Misc 3d 132{A} [App Term 1st Dept 2016]). [read post]
22 Jan 2010, 10:44 am
I select just the articles and posts that I consider especially noteworthy.Day 8ArticlesDan Levine, Boies Lands Punches on Prop 8 Supporter, 01/22/10 The Recorder (SF legal newspaper)Lisa Leff, Prop. 8 backer stands by views on pedophilia, 01/21/10 SF ChronicleHoward Mintz, Controversial Proposition 8 proponent grilled about views on homosexuality, 01/21/10 San Jose Mercury News Howard Mintz, Prop. 8 trial Day 8: Live coverage from the courtroom, 01/21/10 San Jose Mercury… [read post]
15 Jan 2010, 9:07 pm
Supreme Court ruling in Hollingsworth v. [read post]
11 Jan 2016, 2:42 am
Other commentary focuses on Fisher v. [read post]
16 Feb 2012, 6:15 am
In an op-ed in the Washington Post, George Will urges the Court to grant cert. in Harmon v. [read post]
15 Apr 2008, 1:29 pm
Our usual batch of news today is complemented by another few posts detailing the outcome of Miller v. [read post]
30 Mar 2016, 11:34 am
This morning the Court heard oral arguments in Welch v. [read post]
25 Jun 2020, 10:20 am
The case is Matorin v. [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 3:00 am
In Mintz v. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 2:40 am
Co. v Liebman, Adolf & Charme, 257 AD2d 424; VDR Realty Corp. v Mintz, 167 AD2d 986; Wolstencroft v Sassower, 124 AD2d at 582; see also DePinto v Rosenthal & Curry, 237 AD2d 482, 482)". [read post]
22 Feb 2018, 3:56 am
This is insufficient to make out a claim under Judiciary Law§ 487 (see Mintz v Rosenberg, Mine, Falkojf & Wolff, LLP, 53 Misc 3d 132(A), 2016 NY Slip Op 51388[U] [App Term, pt Dept 2016] [“The allegations that defendants filed a certificate of merit and/or a note of issue in the prior action when they lacked sufficient supporting medical expert opinion were not ‘sufficiently egregious’ to support (a Judiciary Law§ 487) claim”]). [read post]
7 Jan 2015, 5:50 pm
Geetter and Julia Jacobson of McDermott Will & Emery on the firm’s blog, Of Digital Interest Top Ten Reasons Why US Trademark Searches are Important to Every Business – Washington, DC lawyer Susan Neuberger Weller of Mintz Levin on the firm’s blog, Copyright & Trademark Matters The Blurry Line Between Marketing and Business Development (And Does The Label Really Matter)? [read post]
23 Dec 2014, 5:30 pm
The 2014 GMO Legislation Scorecard – Mina Nasseri and Dan Herling of Mintz Levin on the firm’s blog, Consumer Product Matters Frackers v. [read post]
27 Jan 2010, 7:20 pm
Nimocks, Final Day of the Trial, 01/27/10 ADF press releaseNCLR’s Legal Director Shannon Minter on Perry v Schwarzenegger Proceedings, Day 12, 01/27/10 Pam's House BlendBrian Leunitz, This is a Witness for the Defense? [read post]
20 Oct 2012, 2:39 pm
DuPont v. [read post]
2 May 2022, 2:43 pm
”); Mintz v. [read post]
4 Dec 2013, 5:30 pm
Horton v. [read post]
17 Dec 2015, 5:30 pm
FTC v. [read post]
23 Mar 2016, 2:55 am
In the San Jose Mercury News, Howard Mintz reports on the Court’s grant of review in Samsung Electronics v. [read post]
23 Apr 2014, 3:10 am
In Schuette v. [read post]
