Search for: "State v. Beatty" Results 21 - 40 of 114
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Mar 2018, 4:12 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
 . was effectively compelled by the mistakes of [defendant] counsel” (Bernstein v Oppenheim & Co., 160 AD2d 428, 430 [1st Dept 1990]) or the result of fraud or coercion (see Beattie v Brown & Wood, 243 AD2d 395 [1st Dept 1997]). [read post]
8 Mar 2018, 4:02 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Kliger-Weiss Infosystems, Inc. v Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C. [read post]
1 Mar 2018, 6:00 am by Jeff Watters
The chair of the Estate and Trust Legislative Affairs Committee of the State Bar of Texas Real Estate, Probate, and Trust Law Section said the new subsection “appears to be an attempt to statutorily overrule the decision in Kappus v. [read post]
27 Dec 2017, 11:19 am by Wolfgang Demino
Keller on behalf of STATE OF TEXAS (Keller, Scott) (Entered: 11/28/2017)11/28/201711 MOTION for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae by STATE OF TEXAS, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, STATE OF ALABAMA, STATE OF ARKANSAS, STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF LOUISIANA, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Brief of Texas et al., # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Keller,… [read post]
27 Dec 2017, 11:19 am by Wolfgang Demino
Keller on behalf of STATE OF TEXAS (Keller, Scott) (Entered: 11/28/2017)11/28/201711 MOTION for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae by STATE OF TEXAS, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, STATE OF ALABAMA, STATE OF ARKANSAS, STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF LOUISIANA, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Brief of Texas et al., # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Keller,… [read post]
16 Nov 2017, 4:25 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The legal malpractice case is first dismissed:  “Plaintiff’s claim for legal malpractice in connection with an underlying settlement fails to state a cause of action in the absence of allegations that the “settlement . . . was effectively compelled by the mistakes of [defendant] counsel” (Bernstein v Oppenheim & Co., 160 AD2d 428, 430 [1st Dept 1990]) or the result of fraud or coercion (see Beattie v Brown & Wood, 243 AD2d 395… [read post]
9 Oct 2017, 12:52 pm
That case (Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina et al. v. [read post]
8 Oct 2017, 3:07 pm
That case (Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina et al. v. [read post]
27 Sep 2017, 4:14 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
These factual allegations, as supplemented by plaintiffs’ papers in opposition to defendant attorney’s dismissal motion, sufficiently alleged a legal malpractice claim (see generally Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; see Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006]; Escape Airports [USA], Inc. v Kent, Beatty & Gordon, LLP, 79 AD3d 437 [1st Dept 2010]). [read post]
3 Sep 2017, 5:47 pm
Pleicones]), no other Justice does so, and two dissenting Justices (Toal and Kittredge) argue that the standard of review is "one at law", not equity (Opinions, pp. 55-57, and 39 at n. 31).For his part, Chief Justice Beatty in his opinion makes absolutely no mention of the standard of review which he thinks applies to the case, although he states that he "disagree[s] with the analysis of the majority" (Opinions at 36; emphasis added), so… [read post]
3 Sep 2017, 5:47 pm
Pleicones]), no other Justice does so, and two dissenting Justices (Toal and Kittredge) argue that the standard of review is "one at law", not equity (Opinions, pp. 55-57, and 39 at n. 31).For his part, Chief Justice Beatty in his opinion makes absolutely no mention of the standard of review which he thinks applies to the case, although he states that he "disagree[s] with the analysis of the majority" (Opinions at 36; emphasis added), so… [read post]
28 Aug 2017, 9:50 am by The Law Office of John Guidry II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT   MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION   CASE NO. 8:17-cr-266-T-23JSS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. [read post]
3 Aug 2017, 12:13 pm
Yesterday, almost two years after hearing arguments, the Supreme Court of South Carolina finally issued its decision in the case of The Protestant Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, et al. v. [read post]
11 Jul 2017, 1:55 pm by Giles Peaker
The conduct of Mr Beattie, which was considered by Webster J to amount to a device (see R v Eastleigh Borough Council, ex p. [read post]