Search for: "State v. Flemming" Results 1 - 20 of 36
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Jul 2016, 5:00 am by Kate Fort
Thus, Defendant Vargo continues to use the state standard rather than the federal standard, given that Ms. [read post]
11 Nov 2008, 4:45 pm
By Brian Wolfman Here's a surprising class action developement: In Flemming v. [read post]
6 Jun 2011, 8:09 am by Steve Hall
The Florida Supreme Court ruling in Coleman v. [read post]
10 Jan 2024, 6:32 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Here, former counsel established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter [*2]of law dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that their actions did not proximately cause the plaintiff’s alleged damages, and that subsequent counsel had a sufficient opportunity to protect the plaintiff’s rights (see Parklex Assoc. v Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer, LLP, 118 AD3d 968, 970; Katz v Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., 48 AD3d 640, 641). [read post]
30 Oct 2023, 5:01 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Schwartzman, Inc. v Pliskin, Rubano, Baum, & Vitulli, 215 A.D.3d 699 [2d Dept. 2023]; Park/ex Associates v Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer, LLP, 118 A.D.3d 698 [2d Dept.2014 ]). [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 5:22 am by Richard Montes
Probst - whether the original publisher of a libelous letter could be responsible for its subsequent publication in Newsday Flemming v. [read post]
“The regulatory history of the HIPAA demonstrates that neither HIPAA nor its implementing regulations were intended to preempt tort actions under state law arising out of the unauthorized release of a plaintiff’s medical records,” Justice Flemming Norcott wrote for a unanimous court in Byrne v. [read post]
“The regulatory history of the HIPAA demonstrates that neither HIPAA nor its implementing regulations were intended to preempt tort actions under state law arising out of the unauthorized release of a plaintiff’s medical records,” Justice Flemming Norcott wrote for a unanimous court in Byrne v. [read post]
6 Jul 2014, 6:28 pm by Joy Waltemath
The Florida appeals court ruled that collateral estoppel did not apply to completely bar the former employee’s civil claim, but that the trial court should not have dismissed the claim without conducting an evidentiary hearing on the stand-your-ground immunity claim (Professional Roofing and Sales, Inc v Flemmings). [read post]