Search for: "Cater v. State Of New York et al"
Results 1 - 12
of 12
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Dec 2020, 6:51 am
Planning Board of the Village of Warwick, et al., a New York appellate court determined that in a hybrid proceeding where a declaratory action seeks an adjudication of rights that could be resolved in an CPLR article 78 proceeding, the 30-day statute of limitations applicable to a CPLR article 78 proceeding applies. [read post]
9 Dec 2008, 8:25 am
Co. et al., defendants NEW YORK COUNTYTortsPetitioner Fails to Show Meritorious Cause Of Action to Warrant Pre-Action DiscoveryAdmission Consultants Inc. v. [read post]
7 Mar 2022, 9:21 am
FOOTNOTES [1] Dipendra Tiwari, et al. v. [read post]
5 Apr 2012, 11:27 am
Yet campaigns for medical malpractice reform persist in states with declining filings (e.g., New York Senate Bill 2011). [read post]
5 Apr 2012, 11:27 am
Yet campaigns for medical malpractice reform persist in states with declining filings (e.g., New York Senate Bill 2011). [read post]
9 Aug 2010, 2:59 am
Uganda had been isolated from 11 New York City residents with illness onsets occurring June 24-August 4. [read post]
8 Feb 2011, 7:02 pm
Greenberg et al., 965 A.2d 763 (Del. [read post]
15 Sep 2017, 9:31 am
Green Bay Co., 80 U.S. 166 (1872). [4] United States v. [read post]
14 Dec 2009, 5:14 am
Things Remembered (Patently-O) US Copyright – Decisions Ninth Circuit rules that Bratz maker MGA Entertainment can continue selling its dolls despite having lost copyright infringement suit last year: MGA Entertainment v Mattel (IPKat) US Copyright – Lawsuits and strategic steps Beyonce - Destiny’s Child and Beyonce settle Cater 2 U copyright dispute: Allen v Destiny’s Child (Chicago IP Litigation Blog) (Chicago IP Litigation… [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 3:01 pm
Is it an autonomous community, like a nation-state? [read post]
17 Oct 2022, 11:35 am
In August, The Trace presented a conspiracy about the amicus briefs filed in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. [read post]
13 Apr 2007, 12:12 pm
A unit limited to the beverage employees is inappropriate because the employees do not possess a community of interest separate and distinct from the restaurant and catering employees, the Board held. [read post]
