Search for: "State v. Purcell"
Results 101 - 120
of 173
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Nov 2018, 4:02 am
” Bua v Purcell & Ingrao, P.C., 99 AD3d 843, 848 (2nd Dept 2012). [read post]
4 Jun 2015, 10:31 pm
Case Comment Cologna v. [read post]
14 Apr 2014, 9:30 pm
Co. v. [read post]
14 Jun 2012, 11:20 am
The controversy has been to the Supreme Court once before, in 2006, when the Justices in a unanimous, summary ruling overturned a prior Ninth Circuit order against enforcement of that provision during the 2006 elections (Purcell v. [read post]
4 Apr 2022, 3:58 am
Here, the plaintiff failed to state causes of action sounding in breach of contract, legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud, as she failed to adequately allege the element of [*2]damages with respect to each of those causes of action (see Denisco v Uysal, 195 AD3d 989; McSpedon v Levine, 158 AD3d 618, 621; Bua v Purcell & Ingrao, P.C., 99 AD3d 843, 848; Smith v Chase Manhattan Bank, USA, 293 AD2d 598,… [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 2:05 pm
Second, ambiguous legal issues can exacerbate time considerations when determining whether a preliminary injunction would significantly damage the public interest in orderly elections as described Purcell v. [read post]
19 Apr 2023, 2:47 pm
Purcell v. [read post]
15 Jul 2024, 4:50 am
But conclusory allegations of damages predicated on speculation cannot suffice for a legal malpractice action (Volpe v Munoz and Associates, LLC, 190 AD3d 661, 661 [1st Dept 2021] citing Bua v Purcell & Ingrao, P.C, 99 AD3d 843, 848 [2d. [read post]
8 Feb 2012, 8:59 pm
JP Morgan Chase Bank comes on the heels of the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Purcell v. [read post]
1 Oct 2020, 7:42 am
” At the Daily Wire, Denise Harle comments on FDA v. [read post]
3 Jan 2012, 4:15 pm
Weekly S387a], State v. [read post]
20 Feb 2018, 7:22 am
The United States Supreme Court has allowed "flawed" election maps to be used when the chances are too close in time to the election, and a minimal decision from the Court, citing Purcell or redistricting decisions, might simply hold off this decision for 2018.The second, and the one that I've wondered more about, is the Bush v. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 12:50 pm
Mar. 23, 2010) (complaint “only asserts a state law, without reference to a federal violation, [and] is preempted”); McQuiston v. [read post]
19 Apr 2020, 9:00 pm
Surely it can’t be the rule that the Court cannot fix a Purcell error because doing so violates Purcell; if so, then lower courts could ignore Purcell with impunity.But we want to set aside Purcell, and its emphasis on remedial latitude, to examine a much more fundamental question: was there, to use the language we do above, “a strong and imminent likelihood of a federal violation (constitutional or statutory)” for the district judge in Wisconsin… [read post]
31 Jul 2020, 6:14 am
“In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the 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 proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” (Bua v Purcell & Ingrao, P.C., 99 AD3d 843, 845; see Bells v Foster, 83 AD3d 876, 877). [read post]
6 Jan 2023, 3:56 am
However, conclusory allegations of damages predicated on speculation cannot suffice for a legal malpractice action (Bua v Purcell & Jngrao, P.C., 99 AD3d 843, 847·848 [2d Dept 2012]). [read post]
7 Jun 2020, 1:17 am
A decision from a Seattle area trial court sustained a challenge similar to the Utah challenge to an expert witness proffered by plaintiffs’ firm Brayton Purcell. [read post]
20 Apr 2020, 12:49 pm
Professor Rick Hasen has some thoughts on RNC v. [read post]
29 Apr 2019, 4:40 am
The complaint further alleges that the defendant’s negligence proximately caused the plaintiffs to sustain actual and ascertainable damages in lost rent and in settling the action brought by the Hive, and thus, validly states a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d at 443; Bua v Purcell & Ingrao, P.C., 99 AD3d 843, 847; Wolstencroft v Sassower, 124… [read post]
29 Jan 2008, 10:35 am
The Supreme Court said something similar in Purcell v. [read post]
