Search for: "In re Estate of Potts"
Results 1 - 16
of 16
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Sep 2013, 7:30 pm
In discharging this duty to review fees, the court cannot apply a selected few factors which might be more favorable to one position or another but must strike a balance by considering all of the elements set forth in Matter of Potts and as re-enunciated in Matter of Freeman. [read post]
29 Apr 2017, 5:08 am
” I’m deeply ambivalent about the Times’ giving real estate to Bret Stephens. [read post]
14 May 2014, 6:34 pm
In discharging this duty to review fees, the court cannot apply a selected few factors which might be more favorable to one position or another but must strike a balance by considering all of the elements set forth in Matter of Potts, and as re-enunciated in Matter of Freeman. [read post]
27 Aug 2014, 7:04 pm
In discharging this duty to review fees, the court cannot apply a selected few factors which might be more favorable to one position or another but must strike a balance by considering all of the elements set forth in Matter of Potts, and as re-enunciated in Matter of Freeman. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 7:05 pm
In discharging this duty to review fees, the court cannot apply a selected few factors which might be more favorable to one position or another but must strike a balance by considering all of the elements set forth in Matter of Potts, and as re-enunciated in Matter of Freeman. [read post]
7 Sep 2013, 7:29 pm
In discharging this duty to review fees, the court cannot apply a selected few factors which might be more favorable to one position or another but must strike a balance by considering all of the elements set forth in Matter of Potts, and as re-enunciated in Matter of Freeman. [read post]
23 Jul 2014, 7:04 pm
In discharging this duty to review fees, the court cannot apply a selected few factors which might be more favorable to one position or another but must strike a balance by considering all of the elements set forth in Matter of Potts, and as re-enunciated in Matter of Freeman. [read post]
22 Jan 2016, 5:13 pm
In discharging this duty to review fees, the court cannot apply a selected few factors which might be more favorable to one position or another but must strike a balance by considering all of the elements set forth in Matter of Potts (241 NY 593 [1925]), as re-enunciated in Matter of Freeman (34 NY2d 1 [1974]). [read post]
10 Jul 2014, 7:06 pm
In discharging this duty to review fees, the court cannot apply a selected few factors which might be more favorable to one position or another but must strike a balance by considering all of the elements set forth in Matter of Potts, and as re-enunciated in Matter of Freeman. [read post]
13 May 2014, 6:35 pm
In discharging this duty to review fees, the court cannot apply a selected few factors which might be more favorable to one position or another but must strike a balance by considering all of the elements set forth in Matter of Potts, and as re-enunciated in Matter of Freeman. [read post]
17 Sep 2013, 7:28 pm
In discharging this duty to review fees, the court cannot apply a selected few factors which might be more favorable to one position or another but must strike a balance by considering all of the elements set forth in Matter of Potts, and as re-enunciated in Matter of Freeman . [read post]
25 Mar 2016, 8:11 am
A New York Estate Lawyer said this was a proceeding brought before the Surrogate's Court, Suffolk County, for the accounting of AFS, as administrator c.t.a. of the estate of WPS. [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 9:57 am
R. and Randall Richard Potts v. [read post]
6 Feb 2016, 1:27 pm
In discharging this duty to review fees, the court cannot apply a selected few factors which might be more favorable to one position or another but must strike a balance by considering all of the elements set forth in Matter of Potts (123 Misc 346 [Sur Ct, Columbia County 1924], affd 213 App Div 59 [4th Dept 1925], affd 241 NY 593 [1925]), and as re-enunciated in Matter of Freeman (34 NY2d 1 [1974]) (see Matter of Berkman, 93 Misc 2d 423 [Sur Ct, Bronx County 1978]). [read post]
19 Sep 2019, 9:05 pm
The proposed rules would empower CFIUS to block foreign investments that implicate critical infrastructure and technology or involve real estate located near U.S. military installations. [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 10:09 am
CHERIE POTTS, No. 11-0517 that an expert report need only address a single valid health-care liability theory to avoid dismissal. [read post]
