Search for: "Branch v. Sweeney" Results 1 - 7 of 7
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Jan 2019, 4:25 pm by INFORRM
” In another Australian case, Sweeney v Boylan Nominees Pty Ltd ((2006) 226 CLR 161), a personal injury claim, the court had considered the rationale for the principles derived from Colonial Mutual Life and reached two conclusions. [read post]
24 Feb 2016, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
As to the third statement, the Appellate Division said that the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of Eastwood’s CPLR 4404(a) motion to set aside so much of the verdict as was in favor of Eastwood with respect to the third statement.* See Sweeney v Prisoners' Legal Servs. of N.Y., 84 NY2d 786** As relevant here, a motion by a party after a trial by jury to set aside all or part of the jury's verdict. [read post]
1 Dec 2008, 11:45 am
Where constitutional rights - whether state or federal - of individuals are concerned, this Court may not abdicate its responsibility in deference to the legislative or executive branches of government. [read post]
4 May 2008, 9:04 am
Burzichelli’s bill passed the assembly in June 2006, ironically on the same day that Judge Lawrence Lawson issued his decision in the MTOTSA cases - City of Long Branch v. [read post]