Search for: "Allen v Allen"
Results 1481 - 1500
of 3,930
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Jul 2021, 10:22 pm
In Dubon v. [read post]
17 Mar 2022, 8:32 am
Swords of Allen Stahl & Kilbourne, PLLC on the victory. [read post]
23 Jan 2009, 12:10 am
Citing Allen v. [read post]
20 Sep 2010, 10:39 am
United States Second Circuit, 09/17/2010 Van Allen v. [read post]
18 Dec 2018, 7:27 am
In Murray v. [read post]
3 Jan 2020, 4:20 am
Allen, 57 NY2d 87 [1982]). [read post]
11 May 2012, 3:09 am
Townsend v. [read post]
22 Feb 2008, 3:00 am
Under these circumstances, the defendant established that its actions did not proximately cause the plaintiffs' alleged damages, and that subsequent counsel had a sufficient opportunity to protect the plaintiffs' rights by pursuing any remedies it deemed appropriate on their behalf (see Ramcharan v Pariser, 20 AD3d 556; Perks v Lauto & Garabedian, 306 AD2d 261; Albin v Pearson, 289 AD2d 272; Kozmol v Law Firm of Allen L. [read post]
13 Aug 2008, 10:16 pm
In Ryan v. [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 10:10 am
Karah Allen Williams ran a stop sign, colliding with Mr. [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 6:46 pm
Allen, ILSC No. 109887, discussed here.Roberts v. [read post]
1 Jun 2015, 5:42 am
U.S. v. [read post]
10 Jan 2016, 7:27 pm
(See also People v Abney, 13 NY3d 251, 267 [2011].)Since LeGrand, the Court of Appeals has reversed the trial court’s exclusion of eyewitness expert testimony in two cases People v Abney and People v Santiago (17 NY3d 661 [2011]) In Santiago, the Court held that the testimony of two additional eyewitness identification witnesses did not sufficiently corroborate the victim's identification of the defendant and did not obviate the need… [read post]
10 Jan 2016, 7:27 pm
(See also People v Abney, 13 NY3d 251, 267 [2011].)Since LeGrand, the Court of Appeals has reversed the trial court’s exclusion of eyewitness expert testimony in two cases People v Abney and People v Santiago (17 NY3d 661 [2011]) In Santiago, the Court held that the testimony of two additional eyewitness identification witnesses did not sufficiently corroborate the victim's identification of the defendant and did not obviate the need… [read post]
24 Aug 2012, 1:00 pm
The variable VaRp expresses the value at risk given a particular probability of a loss as the product of −zp, standard deviation (σ), and the total value of the portfolio (v): VaRp = −zp · σ · v The negative sign before −zp allows us to state value at risk as a positive sum at risk of loss. [read post]
14 Oct 2015, 4:45 am
I'm sure it was more interesting than the snoozer of a debate last night in which the Supreme Court didn't come up.The DP case before the Supreme Court was Hurst v. [read post]
24 Aug 2012, 1:00 pm
The variable VaRp expresses the value at risk given a particular probability of a loss as the product of −zp, standard deviation (σ), and the total value of the portfolio (v): VaRp = −zp · σ · v The negative sign before −zp allows us to state value at risk as a positive sum at risk of loss. [read post]
1 May 2011, 12:44 pm
And so it was for the defendants in Thompson v. [read post]
16 Aug 2012, 11:06 am
(Eugene Volokh) Last year, I blogged about Moore v. [read post]
