Search for: "Allen v Allen"
Results 1381 - 1400
of 3,930
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 May 2007, 11:55 am
As for me, I would start my analysis with Chancellor William Allen's opinion in Mendel v. [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 2:51 am
" "Here, the Mongelli defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the amended complaint alleging legal malpractice insofar as asserted against them by demonstrating that the plaintiffs would be unable to prove, inter alia, the element of causation (see Humbert v Allen, 89 AD3d at 806-807; Marino v Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Salibury & Cambria, LLP, 87 AD3d 566; Pistilli Constr. [read post]
6 Oct 2010, 6:13 am
California, 386 U.S. 738 1967; People v. [read post]
18 May 2023, 8:01 am
Allen. [read post]
29 Aug 2009, 6:21 am
" Allen, 235 F.3d at 489. [read post]
29 Sep 2009, 5:07 am
The second case, Padilla v. [read post]
27 Oct 2009, 11:20 pm
Allen v. [read post]
8 Sep 2010, 3:35 am
Allen, 603 F.3d 1202, 1209 (10th Cir.2010) (A court will not “analyze the record for [the appellant] to determine whether a violation occurred. [read post]
10 Nov 2008, 7:00 pm
(Furia v. [read post]
27 May 2010, 8:11 pm
” Hooks v. [read post]
3 Feb 2019, 4:44 pm
Re Allen, at para. 32, cites an unreported New Zealand decision, Cook v. [read post]
24 Mar 2020, 3:52 am
” The court also held unanimously in Allen v. [read post]
18 Jan 2017, 3:00 am
The defendants based their arguments on a 1995 Fifth Circuit decision, Allen v. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 6:03 am
Plaintiff did not allege “actual, ascertainable damages” incurred by plaintiff’s decedent “as a result of an attorney’s negligence” (Dempster v Liotti, 86 AD3d 169, 177 [1st Dept 2011]; see Humbert v Allen, 89 AD3d 804, 806 [2d Dept 2011]). [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 6:03 am
Plaintiff did not allege “actual, ascertainable damages” incurred by plaintiff’s decedent “as a result of an attorney’s negligence” (Dempster v Liotti, 86 AD3d 169, 177 [1st Dept 2011]; see Humbert v Allen, 89 AD3d 804, 806 [2d Dept 2011]). [read post]
23 Apr 2018, 4:55 am
“Defendant established its entitlement to dismissal on statute of limitation grounds by submitting evidence that the malpractice occurred in 2008, but plaintiff did not commence this action until March 2016, well beyond the three-year limitation period for legal malpractice (CPLR 214[6]; see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002]; Ackerman v Price Waterhouse, 84 NY2d 535, 541 [1994]; Glamm v Allen, 57 NY2d 87, 93 [1982]). [read post]
3 Jun 2019, 9:16 am
In Allen v. [read post]
7 May 2009, 3:04 am
The TTAB, in Bose Corp. v. [read post]
15 Jun 2022, 4:49 am
In Marino v. [read post]
