Search for: "*king v. U. S"
Results 121 - 140
of 572
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jan 2021, 8:12 am
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia held that, “[u]nder the specific circumstances presented by the global COVID-19 pandemic, . [read post]
4 Jan 2021, 4:30 am
The Eikenberry Case A recent decision by Kings County Commercial Division Justice Leon Ruchelsman, Eikenberry v Lamson, 2020 NY Slip Op 33992(U) [Kings County Nov. 30, 2020], is a fine springboard for exploring the application of these legal standards to business divorce litigation where (as is often the case) the injunction movant’s ownership status in the business is hotly contested. [read post]
16 Dec 2020, 12:42 pm
Simo Holdings Inc. v. [read post]
23 Nov 2020, 4:25 am
” Court Denies Summary Judgment Concerning Disputed 10% Membership Interest in Brooklyn Restaurant Galarza v Galarza, 2020 NY Slip Op 33801(U) [Sup Ct Kings County Nov. 6, 2020]. [read post]
16 Nov 2020, 6:16 am
2020 NY Slip Op 33374(U) September 30, 2020 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 8651/05 Judge: Ingrid Joseph is the latest case in which the Leeds Morelli paradigm of “anti-discrimination” litigation is exposed. [read post]
30 Sep 2020, 6:15 am
Jahrhunderts v. [read post]
14 Sep 2020, 6:00 am
In Ofman v Tenenbaum Berger & Shivers LLP 2020 NY Slip Op 32828(U) July 23, 2020 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 524482/2019 Judge: Richard Velasquez, Plaintiff alleged that had the attorney been quicker, the defendant would not have been able to leave the US and the judgment would have been collectible. [read post]
13 Jul 2020, 4:51 am
Realty Associates LLC v Blumberg, 2020 NY Slip Op 32200(U) [Sup Ct NY County July 7, 2020] The aptly named S.O.S. [read post]
2 Jul 2020, 9:26 am
To support this point, Alito compared Thuraissigiam’s requested relief to the type of relief the Supreme Court previously rejected in a 2008 case Munaf v. [read post]
1 Jul 2020, 5:16 am
Wong v Yeung-Ha 2020 NY Slip Op 31832(U) June 11, 2020 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 505276/18, Judge: Karen B. [read post]
20 Jun 2020, 3:16 pm
" King v. [read post]
18 Jun 2020, 7:56 am
" Chenery II, 332 U. [read post]
8 Jun 2020, 5:55 am
“Proximate cause requires a showing that ‘but for’ the attorney’s negligence, the plaintiff would . . . not have sustained any ascertainable damages” (Barbara King Family Trust v Voluto Ventures LLC, 46 AD3d 423, 424 [1st Dept 2007]). [read post]
2 Jun 2020, 3:28 am
Manno v Hayes Law Practice, PLLC 2020 NY Slip Op 31228(U) May 6, 2020 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 520104/16 Judge: Edgar G. [read post]
29 May 2020, 3:00 am
King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. [read post]
11 May 2020, 5:41 am
in Postiglione v Sacks & Sacks, LLP 2020 NY Slip Op 31164(U) April 17, 2020 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 513779/2019 Judge: Edgar G. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
8 May 2020, 5:58 am
Brownstein, Sabastian V. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
