Search for: "PIERCE v. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY" Results 1 - 20 of 23
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 May 2016, 2:00 am
Merrill Lynch, Pierce,  Fenner & Smith, Inc. et al., Defendants (Opinion and Order on Interlocutory Appeal, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, 12-4466, May 23, 2013), a group of Escala Group, Inc. shareholders filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey alleging that Defendants Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc; Knight Capital Americas, L.P.; UBS Securities,… [read post]
28 Sep 2011, 12:24 pm by Nissenbaum Law Group
However, in a matter of first impression, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey recently held that a plaintiff would be able to pierce the corporate veil of a limited partner in certain situations, including when that partner dominated the partnership or used it to perpetuate a fraud or injustice. [read post]
28 Sep 2011, 12:34 pm by Nissenbaum Law Group
However, in a matter of first impression, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey recently held that a plaintiff would be able to pierce the corporate veil of a limited partner in certain situations, including when that partner dominated the partnership or used it to perpetuate a fraud or injustice. [read post]
20 Mar 2019, 11:04 am by Maurice W. McLaughlin
  The first is the common law rule established by New Jersey’s Supreme Court in the case of Pierce v. [read post]
12 Feb 2021, 11:55 am by Mashel Law, L.L.C.
In denying the defendant corporation’s motion for summary judgment, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Yolanda Ciccone, J.S.C. stated in part: Continue Reading › [read post]
6 Jan 2012, 9:00 am by PaulKostro
Div., A-5922-08T3, December 20, 2011: The New Jersey Supreme Court has described the elements of a claim for breach of fiduciary duty as follows: The essence of a fiduciary relationship is that one party places trust and confidence in another who is in a dominant or superior position. [read post]
6 Nov 2017, 1:48 pm by Kenneth Vercammen Esq. Edison
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THEAPPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION       SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY       APPELLATE DIVISION       DOCKET NO. [read post]
14 Jul 2008, 3:34 pm
"That case, however, failed to set a standard because the court found, as a matter of law, that the statements made were not defamatory," the judge wrote.Judge Bellantoni then turned to the four-step test set forth by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, in Dendrite International v. [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 7:16 pm
Concluding that the supervisor’s alleged tortious conduct was not carried out as part of the employer’s business, a federal district court in New Mexico granted partial summary judgment to the employer, rejecting the employee’s contention that the employer was liable based on a respondeat superior theory. [read post]
14 Jul 2008, 10:19 pm
"That case, however, failed to set a standard because the court found, as a matter of law, that the statements made were not defamatory," the judge wrote.Judge Bellantoni then turned to the four-step test set forth by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, in Dendrite International v. [read post]
21 Jul 2011, 5:08 am by Russell Jackson
  The New Jersey Supreme Court had held that New Jersey's exercise of specific jurisdiction over the manufacturer was constitutional. [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 6:29 am by Schachtman
Borden Chemical Co., New Jersey Superior Court, Law Div. [read post]
17 Dec 2011, 12:27 am
Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679, 722-723 (with italics added):the religious congregation or ecclesiastical body holding the property is but a subordinate member of some general church organization in which there are superior ecclesiastical tribunals with a general and ultimate power of control more or less complete, in some supreme judicatory over the whole membership of that general organization.Under the jurisprudence developed by the courts following Watson v. [read post]