Search for: "Matter of Small v State of New York"
Results 81 - 100
of 1,500
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jul 2019, 5:41 am
AT&T Corp., 14 So. 3d 1224, 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (holding that a venue provision was mandatory where it provided: “The parties consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located in New York City, USA. [read post]
29 Jul 2019, 5:41 am
AT&T Corp., 14 So. 3d 1224, 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (holding that a venue provision was mandatory where it provided: “The parties consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located in New York City, USA. [read post]
15 Dec 2009, 12:33 am
Tort Claims Act United States v. [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 6:58 am
Martin Stanberry New York state courts appear primed to resolve important questions about competitive bidding for public contracts in New York City and the ability of contractors to successfully challenge city officials’ actions that directly affect the wage and benefit components of their bids. [read post]
12 Dec 2019, 5:45 am
Key Findings Following the 2018 South Dakota v. [read post]
17 Jan 2023, 6:08 am
In October 2020, Judge Richard Berman of the District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Halkbank’s motion. [read post]
17 Jan 2023, 6:08 am
On Jan.17, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in United States v. [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 6:58 am
Martin Stanberry New York state courts appear primed to resolve important questions about competitive bidding for public contracts in New York City and the ability of contractors to successfully challenge city officials’ actions that directly affect the wage and benefit components of their bids. [read post]
22 Aug 2013, 2:16 pm
(I’ll leave to one side, as did the New Mexico court, the continuing uncertainty created by Employment Division v. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 8:54 pm
Last week, the New York Court of Appeals rejected a request for discretionary review in People v. [read post]
27 Mar 2008, 8:25 am
In the New York Times, Linda Greenhouse reports, "Court Looks at Legal Role for Mentally Ill. [read post]
27 Oct 2016, 2:09 pm
Machines Corp., the Court held that a teaming agreement was unenforceable under New York law because the agreement omitted a material term, specifically, the price for performing the subcontract work. [read post]
15 Nov 2022, 2:17 am
To make matters worse, your small business certification for FY2022 is now expired as of the first day of FY2023, meaning that you will need to reapply for the small business designation. [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 12:28 pm
(Eugene Volokh) A colleague of mine at Mayer Brown — Andy Pincus, generally a liberal fellow and a big fan of the New York Times — reported to me an interesting fact about the New York Times letter-to-the-editor policy, and I thought it was worth mentioning.Pincus represents the petitioner in AT&T v. [read post]
4 Oct 2018, 4:39 am
Conditional approval of the transfer of Rochelle’s shares to the plaintiff was granted by the New York State Public Health Council in a letter dated November 19, 2003. [read post]
8 Jan 2021, 11:52 am
While the Matter of Lowry decision represents a small victory for rideshare drivers in upstate New York, the classification battle is not ending any time soon. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 2:13 pm
For one thing, there's a dissent: Judge Korman, sitting my designation from the Eastern District of New York, doesn't like the grant of relief. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 11:59 am
(NML), one of Argentina’s bondholders, prevailed in 11 debt-collection actions that it brought against Argentina in the Southern District of New York. [read post]
28 Jun 2016, 12:00 am
A careful and detailed analysis in the Decision noted that “[p]laintiff receives the benefit of the discovery rule under the laws of both states, with Massachusetts Law giving him three years from the date of reasonable discovery and New York Law giving him two years from that date. [read post]
19 May 2008, 1:13 am
New York City Department of Education NEW YORK COUNTYCriminal PracticeCourt Rejects Use of 'Telephonic Communication' Definition in PL §250.00[3] Instead of PL §240.30People v. [read post]
