Search for: "MATTER OF STATE OF NY v. King"
Results 141 - 160
of 248
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Sep 2021, 9:27 am
The order was reversed and the matter remitted for a genetic marker test to be administered. [read post]
16 Jul 2017, 4:22 pm
Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine dispute regarding any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [read post]
27 Aug 2007, 3:00 am
King
• Smith v. [read post]
8 Aug 2013, 2:42 pm
Defendant cites the recent United States Supreme Court decision of Jose Padilla v Kentucky, 130 S. [read post]
8 Feb 2010, 3:00 am
According to King, Van Houten refused to meet on a regular basis, proclaimed himself to be a "cowboy" and stated that he would "just get it done". [read post]
17 Oct 2015, 8:47 am
Contests over evocation of identity; expansion by states in Ala., S.D.; pending NY law for postmortem rights. [read post]
22 Dec 2020, 2:33 pm
Ct., Kings County] ), and warrant the denial of summary judgment sought by the party accused of adulterous behavior. [read post]
28 May 2009, 4:14 am
In this case , Romano v Ficchi , 2009 NY Slip Op 51011(U) , Decided on May 22, 2009 , Supreme Court, Kings County , Rivera, J. plaintiff sought to buy a condo with a view. [read post]
26 Apr 2012, 3:17 am
Oral argument in Arizona v. [read post]
19 Feb 2018, 3:22 am
In Mizrahi v Cohen, 34 Misc 3d 1210 [A] [Sup Ct Kings County Jan. 12, 2012], Kings County Commercial Division Justice Carolyn E. [read post]
7 Aug 2010, 5:15 am
In People v. [read post]
8 Jul 2012, 11:12 am
Content Regulation * State v. [read post]
24 Dec 2021, 12:14 pm
"] From B.S. v. [read post]
5 Oct 2023, 2:38 pm
King v. [read post]
15 Apr 2016, 8:10 am
As held in the case of Scarpuzza v. [read post]
21 May 2012, 9:01 am
People v. [read post]
5 Dec 2016, 3:20 am
LEXIS 1468, 2016 NY Slip Op 30727(U), *10 [NY County 2016]). [read post]
6 Jul 2022, 2:41 pm
Thompson (Kings Cty. [read post]
3 Sep 2019, 3:39 am
The New York Constitution explicitly states that the Surrogate’s Court has jurisdiction over matters involving decedents only insofar as they are “not within the exclusive jurisdiction of supreme court” (NY Const Art VI, 12 [d]). [read post]
