Search for: "Burrows v. Burrows"
Results 121 - 140
of 312
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Sep 2020, 4:58 pm
See Burrows v Houda [2020] NSWDC 485. [read post]
24 Sep 2020, 6:50 am
Burrow, 218 N.C. [read post]
28 Aug 2020, 9:48 am
A third-party replied: “Judge Wilson recommended Ms Burrow’s clients be banned for life by ASIC and prosecuted for signing affidavits they knew to be false,” including “document stubs” (apparently, links to external articles?) [read post]
20 Aug 2020, 4:14 am
Supreme Court addressed the EEOC’s methods in the 2015 case Mach Mining, LLC v. [read post]
6 Jul 2020, 5:54 am
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Seila Law v. [read post]
1 Jun 2020, 7:44 am
On Tuesday 2 June 2020, Professor Andrew Burrows QC will be sworn in as a Justice of the Supreme Court. [read post]
6 Mar 2020, 3:19 am
Dr Burrow did, however, identify a spike in the values towards the upper threshold of the limit for the track, now set at £10k. [read post]
21 Nov 2019, 4:27 am
Contrary to Devereaux’s contention, the allegedly defamatory statement made by Burrows was not actionable because it was absolutely privileged as a matter of law (see Brady v Gaudelli, 137 AD3d 951, 952; El Jamal v Weil, 116 AD3d 732, 734; Bisogno v Borsa, 101 AD3d 780, 781; Kilkenny v Law Off. of Cushner & Garvey, LLP, 76 AD3d 512, 513), and does not support a finding of a violation of Judiciary Law § 487 (see Seldon… [read post]
20 Nov 2019, 4:27 am
In support of their motion, the defendants submitted the transcript of the court proceeding setting forth the terms of the settlement of the underlying action, which conclusively established that the plaintiff was not coerced into settling (see Schiller v Bender, Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d 756, 757 [2014]; Pacella v Whiteman Osterman & Hanna, 14 AD3d 545 [2005]; Laruccia v Forchelli, Curto, Schwartz, Mineo, Carlino & Cohn, 295… [read post]
13 Aug 2019, 4:34 am
In support of their motion, the defendants submitted the transcript of the court proceeding setting forth the terms of the settlement of the underlying action, which conclusively established that the plaintiff was not coerced into settling (see Schiller v Bender, Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d 756, 757; Pacella v Whiteman Osterman & Hanna, 14 AD3d 545; Laruccia v Forchelli, Curto, Schwartz, Mineo, Carlino & Cohn, 295 AD2d 321, 322). [read post]
15 Jul 2019, 9:01 pm
In Weyerhaeuser v. [read post]
8 May 2019, 10:30 am
Gonzalez’s article The New Batson: Opening the Door of the Jury Deliberation Room After Peña-Rodriguez v. [read post]
28 Apr 2019, 7:45 am
In contrast in Takeda v Kowa KK (I.P. [read post]
24 Mar 2019, 5:08 pm
Stocker v Stocker, heard 24 January 2019 (UKSC) Rudd v Bridle, heard 7-8 and 11 March 2019 (Warby J) [read post]
8 Mar 2019, 4:34 pm
District Court in National Women’s Law Center v. [read post]
12 Nov 2018, 6:38 am
In Enterprise Products Operating, LLC, v. [read post]
12 Nov 2018, 6:38 am
In Enterprise Products Operating, LLC, v. [read post]
12 Nov 2018, 5:38 am
In Enterprise Products Operating, LLC, v. [read post]
26 Oct 2018, 3:47 am
Accordingly, the complaint failed to state a cause of action for violations of Judiciary Law § 487 (see Ehrenkranz v 58 MHR, LLC, 159 AD3d 872, 872; Shaffer v Gilberg, 125 AD3d 632, 636; Schiller v Bender, Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d 756, 759). [read post]
13 Sep 2018, 4:30 am
Further, the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts demonstrating that the defendant attorneys had the “intent to deceive the court or any party” (Judiciary Law § 487; see Schiller v Bender, Burrow, & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d 756, 759; Agostini v Sobol, 304 AD2d 395, 396). [read post]
