Search for: "Prudential v. Department of Ins." Results 1 - 20 of 45
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Jul 2023, 6:44 pm by Franklin C. McRoberts
Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss should have been denied”]; Brandenberg v Primus Assoc., 304 AD2d 694 [2d Dept 2003] [“Supreme Court . . . properly denied that branch of the appellants’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint . . . as barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel where the prior action was dismissed without prejudice and the issue of legal sufficiency of the complaint was not ‘necessarily decided’”… [read post]
3 Aug 2020, 7:33 pm
Co. v Lee, 120 AD3d 497, 498-499 [2d Dept 2014]; Jones v Peerless Ins. [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 4:48 pm by Will Baude
S., at 305, it may at any time replace such judicial rules with legislation of its own, see Prudential Ins. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 5:56 pm by LindaMBeale
  As I had indicated in the BNA Webinar on the two cases prior to the decision, the US retained a sufficient stake in the matter--relying on INS v. [read post]
22 Jun 2013, 8:32 am by Will Baude
  In my view the only thing making this difficult is the Supreme Court's (apparent) earlier conclusion that it had jurisdiction in INS v. [read post]