Search for: "Brill v. Brill" Results 101 - 120 of 220
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Jul 2011, 10:48 am by Hope Lewis - Guest
The following is an essay for our symposium on Arizona v. [read post]
26 Apr 2013, 3:36 am by Rumpole
 Scott Warfman and Penny Brill for the State and Charlie White and Bruce Fleisher for the defense. [read post]
9 Mar 2019, 5:16 am by Anushka Limaye
And Brian Corcoran examined how Mondelez v. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 3:36 am by Amy Howe
Tomorrow the Court will hear oral arguments in King v. [read post]
1 Apr 2019, 9:10 am by Elim
Jordan Diamond, eds., Stress Testing the Law of the Sea: Dispute Resolution, Disasters & Emerging Challenges (Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2018). [read post]
13 Aug 2012, 1:16 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
While the defendants' cross motion was made more than 120 days after the note of issue was filed and, therefore, was untimely (see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648), an untimely cross motion for summary judgment may be considered by the court where, as here, a timely motion for summary judgment was made on nearly identical grounds (see Grande v Peteroy, 39 AD3d 590, 592; Lennard v Khan, 69 AD3d 812, 814; Bressingham v Jamaica Hosp. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 4:04 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
While the defendants' cross motion was made more than 120 days after the note of issue was filed and, therefore, was untimely (see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648), an untimely cross motion for summary judgment may be considered by the court where, as here, a timely motion for summary judgment was made on nearly identical grounds (see Grande v Peteroy, 39 AD3d 590, 592; Lennard v Khan, 69 AD3d 812, 814; Bressingham v Jamaica Hosp. [read post]