Search for: "POINT-88 REALTY CO." Results 1 - 15 of 15
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Oct 2008, 11:28 am
The plaintiff could not point out the exact location of her fall other than that it was in the middle of the block in front of the George Washington Housing Project. [read post]
Storper, demonstrates that an email will not constitute documentary evidence where it does not conclusively demonstrate grounds for dismissal.[34]  In WL Ross & Co., an investment firm sued Storper, a former senior managing director, for breach of non-compete clauses in the parties’ agreements.[35]  Storper moved to dismiss under theories of waiver, laches and equitable estoppel, pointing to an email from his former employer congratulati [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 3:28 am by Peter Mahler
There being no New York case authority directly on point, Cartalemi relied on a 2014 opinion by the 6th Circuit U.S. [read post]
6 Mar 2008, 12:19 pm by Thornhill Law Firm, APLC
In our recent case of Edward Charles Washington and Travis Parker versus Aetna Life Insurance d/b/a One Canal Place, Schindler Elevator Corporation, Corporate Realty Advisors, and Zurich Insurance Company, Docket Number 01-9541-C of the Civil District Court of the City of New Orleans, all of the issues with respect to the potential modification of the video tape surveillance evidence was presented to us for defending. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 2:13 pm by admin
Crane, 50 Mich 182, 15 NW 73 (1883); Grand Rapids, etc R Co v Cheseboro, 74 Mich 466; 42 NW 66 (1889); Union Depot Co v Backus, 92 Mich 34; 52 NW 790 (1892). [read post]
7 Feb 2008, 10:46 am
The critical point is that the FDCA gives exclusive enforcement authority to the federal government. [read post]
15 Dec 2011, 4:22 am by Dianne Saxe
At what point should the effects of chemical emissions be visited upon residential landowners without compensation if the effect of those depositions impacts the disposition of that property? [read post]
16 Jan 2021, 10:57 pm by Mahmoud Khatib
Norwood Realty, Inc., the letter of intent contained language that was explicitly binding.[46] The court held the letter of intent fell into the first category: Here, the intent of the parties to be bound by the letter of intent is not left to inference from the terms of their agreement but is twice expressly stated in prominent parts of the letter of intent. [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 12:01 pm by ligitsec
.; MOTOWN RECORD CO.; CAPITOL RECORDS, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.NAPSTER, INC., Defendant-Appellant.JERRY LEIBER, individually and doing business as, JERRY LEIBER MUSIC; MIKE STOLLER and FRANK MUSIC CORP., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.NAPSTER, INC., Defendant-Appellant. [read post]