Search for: "Alvarez v. Ins*" Results 41 - 60 of 556
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Apr 2018, 4:11 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  Tarnishment seems obviously gone.Incoherence in Alvarez about whether dilution is even distinguishable from confusion for constitutional purposes/lack of disavowal of USOC v. [read post]
15 Apr 2018, 1:55 pm
In support of its cross motion, Arch established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating the applicability of an exclusion in Corbel's policy (see Platek v Town of Hamburg, 24 NY3d 688, 694; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324-325). [read post]
14 Mar 2018, 4:18 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
” “In Schmidt v One New York Plaza (153 AD3d 427, 428 [1st Dept 2017]), the First Department reaffirmed the standard of review for a summary judgment motion: On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party has the initial burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with evidence sufficient to eliminate any material issue of fact (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1985]). [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 4:30 am by Robert Loeb, Sarah Grant
Alvarez-Machain, the Supreme Court repudiated the notion that the ATS was itself a cause of action. [read post]
22 Feb 2018, 5:19 am by Tu Abogado
V.- PRECEPTOS CONSTITUCIONALES VIOLADOS: Los artículos 1º., 13, l4, l6, 28 y el diverso 31, fracción IV y 133 de la Constitución General de la Republica. [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 4:08 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
” “In Schmidt v One New York Plaza (153 AD3d 427, 428 [1st Dept 2017]), the First Department reaffirmed the standard of review for a summary judgment motion: On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party has the initial burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with evidence sufficient to eliminate any material issue of fact (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1985]). [read post]