Search for: "Loomis v. Loomis"
Results 81 - 100
of 129
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Aug 2012, 7:59 pm
"Conclusory statements and rough estimates of value are not sufficient" (People v Loomis, 56 AD3d 1046, 1047; see People v Selassie, 166 AD2d 358, 359, lv denied 77 NY2d 911). [read post]
I was Arrested for Grand Larceny In New York: Challenging Property Value to Lessen Criminal Exposure
5 Apr 2016, 8:12 am
Furthermore, ‘[c]onclusory statements and rough estimates of value are not sufficient’ to establish the value of the property (People v Loomis, 56 AD3d 1046, 1047; see People v Walker, 119 AD3d 1402, 1402-1403; People v Pallagi, 91 AD3d 1266, 1269). [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 9:27 am
Nippon Shinyaku Co. v. [read post]
16 Mar 2023, 5:00 pm
(quoting Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. [read post]
22 Aug 2011, 11:56 am
Clover Valley Foundation et al. v. [read post]
22 Aug 2011, 11:56 am
Clover Valley Foundation et al. v. [read post]
7 Jun 2017, 1:40 pm
Alex Loomis considered whether the Supreme Court would extend previous precedents to IRAP v. [read post]
12 Jan 2021, 11:20 am
Doe I and Cargill, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 9:03 am
” Finally, the justices asked the federal government to file a brief conveying its views on Loomis v. [read post]
20 Feb 2008, 2:01 pm
Two of our California cases have had a big impact on the way schools in that state and nationwide address the pervasive problem of anti-gay harassment: Loomis v. [read post]
24 Jun 2017, 11:59 am
Alex Loomis provided a summary of the case. [read post]
21 Jun 2017, 2:21 pm
Alex Loomis posted a summary of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Ziglar v. [read post]
20 Jul 2016, 5:43 am
As Jack noted earlier this morning, Lawfare's Alex Loomis has a fascinating new paper up on SSRN (for the moment, anyway) about the scope of Congress's Article I power to "define and punish . . . [read post]
9 Feb 2022, 12:02 pm
Adam Chan discussed how the decision in Torres v. [read post]
16 Jun 2017, 3:00 am
Loomis, involving this issue. [read post]
13 Aug 2012, 2:19 pm
However, a 1979 case called Hackbart v. [read post]
18 Jun 2016, 1:00 pm
See also “The IARC Process is Broken” (May 4, 2016). [2] See Dana Loomis, Kathryn Guyton, Yann Grosse, Béatrice Lauby-Secretan, Fatiha El Ghissassi, Véronique Bouvard, Lamia Benbrahim-Tallaa, Neela Guha, Heidi Mattock, Kurt Straifon behalf of the IARC Monograph Working Group, “Carcinogenicity of drinking coffee, mate, and very hot beverages,” Lancet Oncology (2016 in press). [3] IARC, “Coffee, tea, mate, methylxanthines and… [read post]
23 Mar 2014, 5:23 pm
The case of Loomis v. [read post]
24 Sep 2009, 5:09 am
See also Cupek v. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 1:31 am
Reese v. [read post]
