Search for: "U. S. v. Cookes"
Results 121 - 140
of 427
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jul 2018, 8:00 am
Dalton v. [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 8:00 am
Shaw v. [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 8:00 am
Shaw v. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 8:00 am
Grussing v. [read post]
29 May 2018, 3:26 am
Finally, the OD agrees with the PP that D120 and D121 were filed with the PP's first reply and supported the PP's line of argumentation in that reply. [read post]
2 May 2018, 8:00 am
” Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard is pleased to announce the firm’s record-breaking $148 million jury verdict (Darden v. [read post]
15 Apr 2018, 9:00 pm
The authors wrote, “The maximum observed log reduction of L. monocytogenes was 2.15 ± 0.04 for balsamic vinegar (50% (v/v)), 1.18 ± 0.06 for white wine vinegar ((50% (v/v)) and 1.13 ± 0.06 for acetic acid ((50% (v/v)). [read post]
12 Apr 2018, 3:00 am
” Hyland v. [read post]
9 Apr 2018, 3:00 am
The truck driver, Daniel Juan Rodriguez, was under the influence of cocaine and made an improper U-turn through the median and collided with Antonicelli’s vehicle, causing it to rotate. [read post]
30 Mar 2018, 3:00 am
Joas v. [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 8:00 am
Cunningham v. [read post]
20 Mar 2018, 8:00 am
Guilbeau v. [read post]
20 Mar 2018, 3:50 am
This evidence is sufficient for a fact-finder to determine that defendant breached its duty of loyalty to plaintiff, a former client (see Cooke v Laidlaw Adams & Peck, 126 AD2d 453, 456 [1st Dept 1987] [ethical standards applying to the practice of law impose a continuing obligation upon lawyers to refuse employment in matters adversely affecting a client’s interests, even if the client is a former client]). [read post]
19 Mar 2018, 8:37 am
Cook, 949 F.2d 289 (10th Cir. 1991) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that an officer’s failure to test a “white rock that appeared to be cocaine” bought by a confidential informant in a controlled buy was fatal to the sufficiency of a search warrant affidavit). [read post]
18 Jan 2018, 2:00 am
Gopalratnam v. [read post]
16 Jan 2018, 8:00 am
Lipsey v. [read post]
2 Jan 2018, 3:06 am
This evidence is sufficient for a fact-finder to determine that defendant breached its duty of loyalty to plaintiff, a former client (see Cooke v Laidlaw, Adams & Peck, 126 AD2d 453, 456 [1st Dept 1987] [ethical standards applying to the practice of law impose a continuing obligation upon lawyers to refuse employment in matters adversely affecting a client’s interests, even if the client is a former client]). [read post]
31 Dec 2017, 1:46 pm
Brainchild: Loving v. [read post]
7 Dec 2017, 12:17 pm
In contrast, in Marlow v. [read post]
