Search for: "Met Ed Co. v. City of Reading"
Results 1 - 20
of 71
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Feb 2017, 9:31 am
Zimmer v. [read post]
23 Sep 2017, 12:39 pm
Co. v. [read post]
27 Mar 2009, 8:08 am
(Watertown City Ct., decided 3/24/2009) WARNING: Reading this decision may cause cognitive vertigo. [read post]
27 Sep 2019, 2:49 am
”); Merck & Co. v. [read post]
12 Feb 2013, 6:41 am
Ed. 1093 (1940); Lanzetta v. [read post]
28 Aug 2015, 6:45 pm
Mere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are insufficient" to overcome a motion for summary judgment (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Prudential Home Mtge, Co., Inc. v Cermele, 226 AD2d 357, 357-358 [2d Dept 1996]). [read post]
16 Sep 2017, 6:55 am
Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Phillips v Joseph Kantor & Co., 31 NY2d 307, 311 [1972]). [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 3:45 am
Pride Communications, Inc. to read the entire Order. [read post]
27 Jun 2015, 2:50 pm
ROYSTON, RAYZOR, VICKERY, & WILLIAMS, LLP v. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 9:33 am
Doe and Doe v. [read post]
20 Jan 2021, 8:49 am
” Brenda contended Ryan’s allegations “fail[ed] to meet the high burden required for a change of custody” because none of them, “even if true, constitute[d] a material and substantial change in circumstances. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 9:01 pm
City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries v. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 9:33 am
Doe and Doe v. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 9:33 am
Doe and Doe v. [read post]
28 Dec 2018, 4:04 pm
Druker, Kase & Druker, Garden City, New York, Counsel for Plaintiff. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 11:59 am
Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. [read post]
28 Feb 2024, 2:06 pm
” The wrong turn came in the next case, Alabama Power Co. v. [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 7:09 am
See Exxon Shipping Co. v. [read post]
27 Aug 2023, 3:56 pm
” Although the test’s threshold is viewed as relatively low, not all cases justify removal, and where the state opposes removal and offers persuasive reasons for why Mesa is not satisfied, the burden is very much on the removing party to provide specific reasons as to why the test is met.[6] The Mesa test remains good law and applies to all removals under section 1442.[7] “Although the statute is ‘liberally construed’… the Supreme Court has cautioned… [read post]
5 Jun 2023, 4:56 am
The Culligan Decision But in June 2014, the First Department issued Culligan Soft Water Co. v Clayton Dubilier & Rice, LLC (118 AD3d 422 [1st Dept 2014]). [read post]
