Search for: "Berger v. Berger" Results 121 - 140 of 873
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Apr 2022, 4:22 am by Emma Snell
Miriam Berger reports for the Washington Post. [read post]
4 Apr 2022, 9:00 am by DONALD SCARINCI
Below is a brief summary of the issues before the Court: Berger v. [read post]
22 Mar 2022, 11:21 am by Michael Gentithes
When the Supreme Court hear oral arguments yesterday in Berger v. [read post]
19 Mar 2022, 2:09 pm by admin
Consequently, risk assessors may pay heed to any evidence that points to a need for caution, rather than assess the likelihood that a causal relationship in a specific case is more likely than not.[2] In March 2003, Professor Berger organized a symposium,[3] the first Science for Judges program (and the last), where the toxicologist Dr. [read post]
16 Mar 2022, 2:35 pm by John Elwood
City and County of San Francisco and Berger v. [read post]
15 Mar 2022, 6:33 am by James Romoser
Binder & Russell Wheeler, FixGov) Did US v Zubaydah Create Precedent? [read post]
14 Mar 2022, 4:51 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The essential elements of a breach of contract cause of action are “the existence of a contract, the plaintiff’s performance under the contract, the defendant’s breach of that contract, and resulting damages” (Liberty Equity Restoration Corp. v Maeng-Soon Yun, 160 AD3d 623, 626 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Stewart v Berger, 192 AD3d 940, 941). [read post]
16 Feb 2022, 4:59 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
As a preliminary matter, the motion court properly considered plaintiffs’ theory of lost-time damages because, although the theory was not pleaded in the complaint, it was the subject of discovery, and defendant cannot reasonably claim that it did not have notice of or was surprised by it (see Mitchell v 423 W. 55th St., 187 AD3d 661, 662 [1st Dept 2020]; Penner v Hoffberg Oberfest Burger & Berger, 44 AD3d 554, 555 [1st Dept 2007]). [read post]
7 Feb 2022, 3:45 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
” “The Court further finds that the part of plaintiff’s motion seeking to dismiss defendants’ first counterclaim (and sixth defense) alleging legal malpractice, as being time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214[6]; Stewart v Berger, 137 AD3d 1103 [2nd Dept 2016]), is granted, except to the extent that the first counterclaim seeks to offset as a shield for equitable recoupment purposes, a sum equal to an award of legal… [read post]