Search for: "Fleetwood v. State" Results 1 - 20 of 26
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Dec 2018, 4:19 am by tracey
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) WH Holding Ltd & Anor v E20 Stadium LLP [2018] EWCA Civ 2652 (30 November 2018) Forrester v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 2653 (29 November 2018) Rashid v Nasrullah [2018] EWCA Civ 2685 (29 November 2018) High Court (Administrative Court) MIV & Ors,R (on the application of) v LB of Newham [2018] EWHC 3298 (Admin) (30 November 2018) Jefferies & Ors, R (on the application of)… [read post]
20 Nov 2018, 5:00 am by TEI Expert
Fleetwood Homes of Pennsylvania, Inc., 878 A.2d 509 (Me. 2005) although more Daubert than Frye. [read post]
19 Jul 2018, 4:23 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“Although an account stated may be based on an express [*2]agreement between the parties as to the amount due, an agreement may be implied where a defendant retains bills without objecting to them within a reasonable period of time, or makes partial payment on the account” (Citibank [South Dakota], N.A. v Abraham, 138 AD3d at 1056; see Fleetwood Agency, Inc. v Verde Elec. [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 4:19 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“Although an account stated may be based on an express [*2]agreement between the parties as to the amount due, an agreement may be implied where a defendant retains bills without objecting to them within a reasonable period of time, or makes partial payment on the account” (Citibank [South Dakota], N.A. v Abraham, 138 AD3d at 1056; see Fleetwood Agency, Inc. v Verde Elec. [read post]
3 Jan 2018, 2:50 pm by Megan Gardner
Fleetwood Park Development, LLC, 111 A.D.3d 681, 974 N.Y.S.2d 573 (2d Dep’t 2013); Drapaniotis v. 36-08 33rd Street Corp., 48 A.D. 3d 736, 853 N.Y.S.2d 356 (2d Dep’t 2008; Sager v. [read post]
3 Jan 2018, 2:50 pm by Megan Gardner
Fleetwood Park Development, LLC, 111 A.D.3d 681, 974 N.Y.S.2d 573 (2d Dep’t 2013); Drapaniotis v. 36-08 33rd Street Corp., 48 A.D. 3d 736, 853 N.Y.S.2d 356 (2d Dep’t 2008; Sager v. [read post]
23 Nov 2015, 9:57 pm
His introduction of the untimely, unexplained, and unsworn-to photocopies of bills, checks and credit card statements are inadmissible to evidence entitlement to summary judgment (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Seidman v Industrial Recycling Props., Inc., 52 AD3d 678 [2008]; see also CPLR 4533[a]; Daguerre S.A.R.L. v Rabizadeh, 112 AD3d 876 [2013]; Matell Contracting Co., Inc. v Fleetwood Park Development, LLC, 111 AD3d 681 [2013]). [read post]