Search for: "BANKS v. JOHNSON " Results 221 - 240 of 936
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Jan 2012, 5:49 pm by Steven G. Pearl
Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011), which held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts the California Supreme Court's decision in Discover Bank v. [read post]
31 May 2019, 4:17 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“[A] debtor’s failure to list a legal claim as an asset in his or her bankruptcy proceeding causes the claim to remain the property of the bankruptcy estate and precludes the debtor from pursuing the claim on his or her own behalf” (123 Cutting Co. v Topcove Assoc., 2 AD3d 606, 607; see 11 USC § 554; Ladson v Fessel, 85 AD3d 1128, 1129; see also Dynamics Corp. of Am. v Marine Midland Bank-N.Y., 69 NY2d 191, 195-196). [read post]
17 Apr 2015, 9:30 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
Hotak v London Borough of Southwark; Johnson v Solihull; and Kanu v London Borough of Southwark, heard on 15 December 2014. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 12:20 pm by Don Cruse
Some of those claims made it to the Texas Supreme Court in Jefferson State Bank v. [read post]
29 Oct 2008, 6:42 pm
  In a most recent case, however, Bayne v. [read post]
25 Jan 2011, 7:24 am by Mandelman
Oh, look who’s here… Elizabeth Warren, I’m so pleased you were able to join us… let’s see where I’ve got you sitting… “Um, she can sit next to me…” Oh, Simon Johnson, of course… sorry, but I have you over here. [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 8:51 am by MOTP
Justice Johnson delivered an opinion, concurring in part and dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Lehrmann, Justice Boyd, and Justice Brown joined.Phil Johnson would not go as farwould keep potential interference tort available as gapfiller if no other remedy would cover the situation. [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 5:00 pm by John Ehrett
Hamilton Bank of Johnson City barring property owners from filing a federal takings claim in federal court until they exhaust state court remedies. [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 4:26 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The ongoing representation must be specifically related to the matter in which the attorney committed the alleged malpractice (Id.; Johnson v Proskauer Rose LLP, 129 AD3d 59, 68 [1st Dept 2015]). [read post]
23 May 2020, 12:03 am by Magdaleen Jooste
In the case of Agarwal v. [read post]