Search for: "Fischer v. State Bar" Results 121 - 140 of 202
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Oct 2013, 5:00 am by Bexis
  Comment k could correspond to Led Zeppelin, and state of the art might be The Who.And it seems that, for each of these bands, there’s a song we really like that gets slighted (in our opinion) when it comes to air time on classic rock stations. [read post]
10 Jun 2013, 8:12 am by Steven Gursten
So what happened after Kreiner v Fischer took these “third-party” auto accident tort cases away from the auto lawyers who used to handle a lot of $20,000 policy limit cases for a living? [read post]
17 May 2013, 1:27 pm by National Indian Law Library
(Trademarks)* State Courts Bulletinhttp://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/currentstate.htmCases featured:In the Matter of K.B. and T.B (Indian Child Welfare Act, notice of termination hearing)In the Interest of T.E.R. [read post]
22 Dec 2012, 11:24 am by Daniel E. Cummins
LEXIS 91497 (M.D.Pa. 2012), Judge Nora Barry Fischer of the Western District of Pennsylvania in Gross v. [read post]
3 Dec 2012, 3:42 am by Russ Bensing
  The defendant in State v. [read post]
10 Nov 2012, 7:52 am by John Steele
I further conclude that district courts should consider coupling the imposition of monetary sanctions with referrals to state bar associations. [read post]
18 Oct 2012, 7:59 am by Ariel Greenberg
 The culmination of a lengthy court battle, this decision bars the claim by New York resident Leon Fischer and Czech citizen Milos Vavra, the heirs of Franz [read post]
13 Sep 2012, 1:15 pm by admin
  I’ve lectured to the Michigan State Bar, the Michigan Association for Justice, the Institute for Continuing Legal Education, and spoken on this topic at three of the state’s law schools. [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 3:07 am by New Books Script
Chicago, Ill. : American Bar Association, 2012 xi, 223 p. : ill. ; 23 cm. [read post]
30 Aug 2012, 1:51 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
While most of the underlying causes of action were time-barred before the plaintiff retained the [*2]defendants, the plaintiff's claim under 42 USC § 1983 arising from malicious prosecution was viable at the time the defendants commenced the federal action on the plaintiff's behalf (see Palmer v State of New York, 57 AD3d 364, 364; Pendelton v City of New York, 44 AD3d 733, 737). [read post]