Search for: "Shivers v. State"
Results 21 - 40
of 48
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Oct 2014, 6:29 am
In Holt v. [read post]
31 Jul 2014, 5:52 am
First, whether § 51 applies to all state building codes or “only those concerning fire safety” as stated in McAllister v. [read post]
16 Jul 2014, 4:18 am
Now, in Lee v. [read post]
18 Apr 2014, 5:00 am
Bauman v. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 9:53 am
The questions raised in three petitions left shivering in the (ironic) cold, Virginia v. [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 12:36 pm
We first happened upon Loreto v. [read post]
16 Nov 2012, 1:50 pm
Nov. 8, 2012), primarily concerning its fraudulent joinder holding – in accord with the “overwhelming weight of authority” in other states – that a hospital cannot be strictly liable for claimed defects in drugs and medical devices that are used in medical procedures within its walls. [read post]
13 Sep 2012, 1:15 pm
Fischer should send a shiver down the spine of every judge and lawyer who practiced law during the Kreiner era. [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 5:00 am
State v. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 1:55 pm
T.M.H., Appellant, v. [read post]
23 Nov 2011, 10:41 am
Last year, the Superior Court sent a shiver through the bar with its opinion in Barrick v. [read post]
17 Nov 2011, 11:08 pm
My research for the upcoming presentation brought to my attention the case law of Bankway Properties Ltd v. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 8:12 am
The action is filed as “United States v. [read post]
24 May 2011, 4:41 am
Shivers v. [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 6:07 am
Shiver, 305 F. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 2:00 am
Div. 1998); Shivers v. [read post]
19 Nov 2010, 2:45 pm
For example, in Sprint Comm'ns v. [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 7:39 am
The Court noted that, post Herring v. [read post]
30 Jul 2010, 11:04 am
” Oooooh, shiver. [read post]
24 Feb 2010, 8:55 am
However, affording the legal malpractice cause of action a liberal construction and according the plaintiff every favorable inference, the complaint does state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice (see generally Hamoudeh v Mandel, 62 AD3d 948, 949; Maiolini v McAdams & Fallon, P.C., 61 AD3d 644, 645; Malik v Beal, 54 AD3d 910, 911). [read post]