Search for: "State v. Bender" Results 41 - 60 of 245
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Dec 2010, 9:06 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
That is, a client must establish "actual and ascertainable  damaes" (Boone v Bender, 74 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citations ommitted]; see Ehlinger v Ruberti, Girvin & Ferlazzo, 304 AD2d 925, 926 [2003]) that would not have occurred "but for" the attorney's conduct (Boone v Bender, 74 AD3d at 1113; see Ulico Cas. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 11:30 am by Westminster Law Library
Bender has adopted a new way to refer to Colorado Supreme Court and Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions in legal briefs and other documents. [read post]
18 Jun 2022, 8:41 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Patent Owner SynQor appeals, asking this court to vacate the Board’s decision rejecting claims 49 and 50 of the ’021 patent pursuant to United States v. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 8:25 am by PaulKostro
& A. 1932) (stating same); 29 Appleman on Insurance 2d § 180.12[C], at 567 (Matthew Bender 2006) (“Entitlement to policy proceeds on the beneficiary’s predecease of the insured follows the vested character of the interest. [read post]
27 Nov 2017, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
Bender; articles by Michael Kaufman, Steven A. [read post]
14 Feb 2008, 12:03 am
On this Valentine's Day, I thought I'd pick up the theme from the Business Week article and take a look at an example, courtesy of the 7th Circuit's decision in Benders v. [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 4:45 pm by Thaddeus Hoffmeister
However, the Louisiana Supreme Court recently abrogated the Knighten Rule in State v. [read post]
11 Apr 2010, 6:32 pm by Ray Dowd
The Southern District of New York stated that it was “awarding [the defendant] its fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. [read post]
8 Aug 2011, 10:11 am by Diane Polscer
 However, a well respected treatise on Washington insurance law subsequently criticized this aspect of Holly Mountain as being inconsistent with the principles stated in Tank v. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 9:54 pm by Luke Rioux
On 1/27/14 the United States Supreme Court decided Burrage v. [read post]
4 Dec 2020, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Citing Bender v New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., 38 NY2d 662, the Appellate Division explained that the Doctrine of Estoppel "is only applicable to a government agency when the agency acts or comports itself wrongfully or negligently, inducing reliance by a party who changes his or her position to his or her detriment or prejudice. [read post]
4 Dec 2020, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Citing Bender v New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., 38 NY2d 662, the Appellate Division explained that the Doctrine of Estoppel "is only applicable to a government agency when the agency acts or comports itself wrongfully or negligently, inducing reliance by a party who changes his or her position to his or her detriment or prejudice. [read post]