Search for: "Rhodes v. Stewart"
Results 41 - 49
of 49
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jun 2011, 2:36 am
However, even if a plaintiff establishes the first prong, the plaintiff must still demonstrate that he or she would have succeeded on the merits of the action but for the attorney's negligence (see Hamoudeh v Mandel, 62 AD3d 948, 949; McCluskey v Gabor & Gabor, 61 AD3d 646, 648; Peak v Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, P.C., 28 AD3d 1028, 1030-31; see also Brodeur v Hayes, 18 AD3d 979; Raphael v Clune, White & Nelson,… [read post]
20 May 2011, 2:34 pm
Resource: Tamayo v. [read post]
26 Apr 2011, 4:31 pm
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 7:00 am
EEOC v. [read post]
6 Feb 2009, 6:04 am
Edwards, 770 F.2d 739 (8th Cir. 1985); Stewart v. [read post]
16 May 2008, 12:43 pm
As a result of that, and some litigation in the Massachusetts state courts, it seems that the only U.S. residents who have been allowed to marry in Massachusetts are Rhode Islanders (based on a possibly dubious interpretation of Rhode Island law by the Massachusetts courts) and a few New Yorkers who rushed in to marry in 2004 before state government threats to local clerks shut down that process. [read post]
5 Jul 2007, 10:37 am
App. 1993); Stewart v. [read post]
29 May 2007, 6:00 pm
Coker v. [read post]
28 Nov 2006, 9:00 pm
See Rhode Island v. [read post]
