Search for: "State v. Arrington" Results 1 - 20 of 40
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Feb 2014, 3:36 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Giving plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference that can reasonably be drawn from the pleadings (Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 634 [1976]), as we must on a pre-answer motion to dismiss (see Arrington v New York Times Co., 55 NY2d 433, 442 [1982], cert denied 459 US 1146 [1983]), it appears that the inaction of counsel rendered the lapse of plaintiff's cause of [*4]action not merely possible — or even probable — but inevitable. [read post]
18 Sep 2010, 10:31 am by John McFarland
The suit, Mesa Water, L.P. and G&J Ranch, Inc. v. [read post]
29 May 2008, 2:54 pm
In the court case, Griswold v. [read post]
1 Sep 2009, 4:39 am
However, in considering a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff's pleadings must be given their most favorable intendment (Arrington v New York Times Co., 55 NY2d 433, 442 [1982]), and the plaintiff's allegations which are contrary to the documentary evidence must be accepted (Scheller v Martabano, 177 AD2d 690 [1991]). [read post]
30 Mar 2009, 5:00 am
A corporation is domiciled only in the state where it is incorporated (Sease v Central Greyhound Lines, Inc., of New York, 306 NY 284 [1954]). [read post]