Search for: "INGRAHAM v STATE"
Results 1 - 20
of 43
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Sep 2018, 5:04 am
The story of Ingraham v. [read post]
11 Sep 2011, 8:49 am
In Ingraham v. [read post]
17 Sep 2021, 4:52 am
Lavelle-Tomko v Aswad & Ingraham 2021 NY Slip Op 01112 [191 AD3d 1142] February 18, 2021 Appellate Division, Third Department is an example. [read post]
6 Jul 2010, 8:16 am
Timmons v. [read post]
30 Aug 2022, 4:27 am
Sure, the Supreme Court held that corporal punishment in schools was not cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment in Ingraham v. [read post]
19 Mar 2021, 3:15 am
Lavelle-Tomko v Aswad & Ingraham 2021 NY Slip Op 01112 Decided on February 18, 2021 Appellate Division, Third Department is a cautionary tale about ending an attorney-client relationship and the dangers of not keeping good records. [read post]
3 Dec 2021, 5:22 am
According the complaint a liberal construction, accepting the allegations contained therein as true and providing plaintiff with the benefit of every favorable inference, we find that plaintiff sufficiently alleged a violation of Judiciary Law § 487 (compare Lavelle-Tomko v Aswad & Ingraham, 191 AD3d at 1147-1148; Krouner v Koplovitz, 175 AD2d 531, 533 [1991]). [read post]
19 Apr 2012, 3:05 am
The plaintiff failed to demonstrate prima facie that the defendants "[1] regularly do[ ] or solicit[ ] business, or engage[ ] in any other persistent course of conduct, or derive[ ] substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in the state," or "[2] expect[ ] or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derive[ ] substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce" (CPLR 302[a][3][i], [ii]; see… [read post]
31 Oct 2022, 4:58 am
In the civil context, the claim “accrues when the malpractice is committed” (Ruggiero v Powers, 284 AD2d 593, 594 [3d Dept 2001], lv dismissed 97 NY2d 638 [2001]), “not at the time that the injury is discovered” (Lavelle-Tomko v Aswad & Ingraham, 191 AD3d 1142, 1143 [3d Dept 2021]; see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002]). [read post]
9 May 2011, 3:02 am
The plaintiff failed to demonstrate prima facie that the defendants "[1] regularly do[ ] or solicit[ ] business, or engage[ ] in any other persistent course of conduct, or derive[ ] substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in the state," or "[2] expect[ ] or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derive[ ] substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce" (CPLR 302[a][3][i], [ii]; see… [read post]
CA11: Damage to door in attempt to enter, without entry, is de minimus for Fourth Amendment purposes
28 Jan 2012, 9:15 pm
Ingraham v. [read post]
4 Feb 2020, 5:13 am
”) United States v. [read post]
4 Dec 2007, 3:37 am
" Ingraham v. [read post]
4 Dec 2007, 8:02 pm
" Ingraham v. [read post]
14 Apr 2020, 5:32 pm
Code § 19 Presidential Succession Act of 1792 Presidential Succession Act of 1886 Congressional Research Service report on presidential succession, 6/29/05 Continuity of Government Commission succession report, 6/1/09 Jack Goldsmith, “A Presidential Succession Nightmare,” Lawfare, 3/25/20 BARR & RELIGIOUS FREEDOM Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment AG Barr’s Fox News interview with Laura Ingraham, 4/8/20 DOJ spokesperson tweeting… [read post]
13 Aug 2021, 2:32 pm
Amant v. [read post]
29 Aug 2012, 12:35 pm
Martinez drove the BMW south on Ingraham Street. [read post]
8 Jun 2016, 6:15 am
Federal judge Joe Ingraham sentenced Ali to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. [read post]
2 Nov 2016, 4:56 am
Yesterday, the court heard arguments in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. [read post]
5 Jul 2023, 5:47 am
Ingraham (S.D.N.Y. 1973), where the plaintiffs challenged on privacy grounds the constitutionality of record keeping under a state controlled-substances act. [read post]
