Search for: "Kaplan, Appeal of" Results 61 - 80 of 782
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Jul 2017, 11:44 am by kaplan4law
  The post Sharp Drop in Appeals Reaching DC’s Highest Court appeared first on The Kaplan Law Firm. [read post]
30 Jul 2018, 8:46 am
A notice of appeal is due in 30 days after the judgment. [read post]
25 Aug 2016, 4:30 pm by kaplan4law
CavaMezze Grill case has filed their brief in opposition to our appeal in this Title VII case, which is currently pending in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and I have filed The Kaplan Law Firm’s reply brief in further opposition to the arguments made by Cava. [read post]
21 Jan 2020, 12:45 pm by Matthew B. Kaplan
Circuit Court of Appeals today reversed the federal murder conviction of a Kaplan Law Firm client. [read post]
21 Jan 2020, 12:45 pm by Matthew B. Kaplan
Circuit Court of Appeals today reversed the federal murder conviction of a Kaplan Law Firm client. [read post]
20 Jan 2023, 8:48 am by Gerry W. Beyer
Kaplan, Guy Raymond Jones Chair in Law, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, recently posted his article entitled The Declining Appeal of Inherited Retirement Accounts on SSRN which was published in 42 Va. [read post]
22 Nov 2006, 5:52 am
The Second Circuit heard oral arguments on November 21 in the appeal of U.S. [read post]
1 Jun 2007, 4:09 am
More Developments on Legal Fee Advancements Last Tuesday, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - in Stein v. [read post]
1 Jun 2017, 11:46 am by Legal Profession Prof
The June 2017 California Bar Journal reports on a recent disbarment Kaplan appealed from a State Bar Court Hearing Judge’s decision that he be disbarred for failing to maintain client funds in a client trust account and intentionally misappropriating those... [read post]
5 Feb 2023, 12:05 am by Paul Caron
Kaplan (Illinois; Google Scholar) [567 Downloads] Pillar 2, Fiat, and... [read post]
25 Nov 2022, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
The Court of Appeal concluded (I oversimplify here slightly) that the trial court was correct to deny the anti-SLAPP motion, and to allow Kaplan's claim to go forward, because "his slander per se claim had the minimal merit necessary to withstand dismissal under the anti-SLAPP statute": Both statements made by Gimelstob on the podcast qualify as slander per se because they "[c]harge[]" Kaplan "with [a] crime. [read post]