Search for: "Benson v. State" Results 41 - 60 of 395
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Sep 2011, 7:51 pm by David Lat
Kasowitz Benson: Motion to Dismiss [Supreme Court of New York]Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Berry v. [read post]
7 Jul 2008, 8:41 pm
Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman v. [read post]
15 Sep 2010, 5:00 am by Nathaniel Grow
As stated by WAC Commission Karl Benson:"We’ve declared pretty consistently that the football schedule for 2011 would be drastically challenging for the six remaining members if they lost two footballs games in the 2011 season less than a year away," Benson said Tuesday. [read post]
14 May 2013, 12:16 pm by John Kong
All the Judges rely on the same Supreme Court precedents in Gottschalk v Benson, Parker v. [read post]
27 Apr 2016, 11:58 am by John Mastoras
The Ontario Court of Appeal in Howard v Benson Group Inc. recently weighed in on the issue. [read post]
10 Feb 2007, 3:59 am
Issued February 7, 2007—Memorandum and Order by Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg. [read post]
16 May 2014, 2:16 pm by Jani
The machine-to-transformation is not, according to the US Supreme Court, the only definitive test, but more of "...a useful and important clue, an investigative tool, for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under §101".Gavin always thought in the abstractThe majority's decision hinged heavily on its previous decisions of Gottschalk v Benson, Parker v Flook and Diamond v Diehr. [read post]
25 Apr 2022, 4:32 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
In a brisk and unequivocal grant of a CPLR 3211 motion, Justice Borrok makes some sweeping findings of fact in Walk v Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, 2022 NY Slip Op 50031(U) [74 Misc 3d 1203(A)], Decided on January 20, 2022, Supreme Court, New York. [read post]
24 Jan 2022, 3:04 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Walk v Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, 2022 NY Slip Op 50031(U) Decided on January 20, 2022 Supreme Court, New York County Borrok, J. [read post]
27 Dec 2006, 9:02 am
The Ninth Circuit basically held that the evidence did not warrant a punitive award that went to the limit of what is permitted under State Farm v. [read post]