Search for: "Cohen v. Attorney General" Results 121 - 140 of 649
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Feb 2008, 12:58 pm
Adlerstein's attorney, Clifford E. [read post]
” Trump also argues that the subpoena “exceed[s] the District Attorney’s jurisdiction generally. [read post]
9 May 2022, 3:16 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
While plaintiff cites to cases where a legal malpractice claim was held viable despite a settlement in the underlying action [Cohen v. [read post]
11 Dec 2007, 4:01 pm
Cohen reminds me of one such instance: The Brandeis Brief in Muller v. [read post]
2 Mar 2019, 6:57 am by Mikhaila Fogel
Eliot Kim summarized the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jam v. [read post]
12 Apr 2013, 9:21 am by Kathryn Fort
The amicus briefs on the side of the father, including 18 state attorneys general, the Solicitor General, and child welfare agencies and non-profits, are incredibly strong. [read post]
2 May 2013, 10:50 am by Joel R. Brandes
This standard is discretionary in  nature and is governed by general equitable principles. (4) In the circumstances of this case, an award of all necessary expenses would be "clearly inappropriate." [read post]
2 Feb 2017, 8:15 am by petrocohen
We have the highest firm rating (A/V) from Martindale-Hubbell, the prestigious peer review firm, and have been named 22 consecutive years in “Best Lawyers” and 12 times as “NJ Super Lawyers®” in a survey of workers’ comp attorneys. [read post]
17 Aug 2022, 4:50 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
However, the violation of a disciplinary rule or ethical obligations does not, without more, generate a cause of action for legal malpractice (Guiles v Simser, 35 AD3d 1054, 1056 [2006]; Weintraub v Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim, & Ballon, 172 AD2d 254 [1991]). [read post]
30 Jul 2019, 4:23 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
LLC v Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP, 165 AD3d 594, 595 [1st Dept 2018] [“While proximate cause is generally a question for the factfinder . [read post]
22 Aug 2011, 8:08 am by Kiera Flynn
Jicarilla Apache Nation, holding that the fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege does not apply to the general trust relationship between the United States and the Native American tribes, and whether the Court’s cert. process favors opponents of Native American interests. [read post]