Search for: "Ramos v Charles" Results 1 - 20 of 96
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Dec 2018, 4:37 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
This month, two of her former colleagues, Manhattan Commercial Division Justices Eileen Bransten and Charles E. [read post]
21 Apr 2014, 2:48 am by Peter Mahler
Ramos, in Serota v Scimone, 2014 NY Slip Op 30924(U) [Sup Ct, NY County Apr. 8, 2014], where it’s the second wife who prevails over the sons of her deceased husband’s first marriage by means of a different kind of dead-hand control mechanism involving a blanket delegation of LLC management authority to an outside contractor allied with the second wife and her son from her own prior marriage. [read post]
10 Aug 2015, 3:28 am by Peter Mahler
Two major themes are at work in a noteworthy decision last month by Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Charles E. [read post]
9 Dec 2013, 3:27 am
This, according to the Court of Appeals’ opinion, is how the prosecution came about: At Schatz's trial, the government called Detective Charles Ramos of the Special Victims Unit of the Boykin Beach, Florida, Police Department. [read post]
17 Jun 2009, 6:41 am
On June 17, 2009, the CCA heard oral argument in the following cases:PD-0812-08, Hernan Arquimides Ramos v. [read post]
22 Apr 2020, 3:46 am by Edith Roberts
At The Washington Free Beacon, Kevin Daley reports that Monday’s decision in Ramos v. [read post]
21 Nov 2016, 3:20 am by Peter Mahler
Huang v Northern Star Management LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 32194(U) [Sup Ct NY County Oct. 24, 2016]. [read post]
2 Dec 2018, 8:23 am by John Floyd
Supreme Court sided with the Texas courts in Medellin v. [read post]
23 Apr 2020, 4:09 am by Edith Roberts
At the Washington Legal Foundation’s Legal Pulse blog, Lawrence Ebner wonders, “given the unusual alignment of Justices” in Ramos v. [read post]
2 Jun 2015, 8:47 am by Steven Cramer
In a recent decision, Justice Charles Ramos of the Commercial Division, New York County, was presented with a plaintiff trying desperately to avoid a gap in Lien Law protection. [read post]