Search for: "MORRIS v. MORRIS" Results 1661 - 1680 of 3,968
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Jan 2014, 3:14 am by John Day
This statute has been the subject of many appeals in Tennessee, and was most recently addressed by the Middle Section of our Court of Appeals in Morris v. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 3:25 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
  The rules, however, are clear:   "To dismiss a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) on the ground that it is barred by the Statute of Limitations, a defendant bears the initial burden of establishing prima facie that the time in which to sue has expired" (Savarese v Shatz, 273 AD2d 219, 220; see Morris v Gianelli, 71 AD3d 965, 967). [read post]
20 Dec 2015, 8:34 am by Charles (Chuck) Rubin
It does not appear that the 2013 breakout of these provisions out of Section 689.071 to their new home in Section 689.07 changes the analysis.Heiskell and Morris v. [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 8:18 am by Andrew Hamm
United States, and Morris v. [read post]
11 Aug 2008, 2:40 am
However, counsel "must submit supporting facts in evidentiary form sufficient to justify the default" (Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead v Jablonsky, 283 AD2d 553, 554 [2001]) and include "a detailed explanation of [the] oversights" (Hospital for Joint Diseases v ELRAC, Inc., 11 AD3d 432, 433 [2004]; see also Grezinsky v Mount Hebron Cemetery, 305 AD2d 542 [2003]; Morris v Metropolitan Transp. [read post]