Search for: "State v. Greenberg"
Results 121 - 140
of 550
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jul 2020, 6:25 am
In Dohmen v. [read post]
21 Nov 2019, 4:27 am
The Emerson defendants and the Greenberg Traurig defendants established that this action was without any reasonable basis in law or fact and that the primary purpose in commencing this action was to harass them (see Baxter v Javier, 109 AD3d 493, 495; Zysk v Kaufman, Borgeest & Ryan, LLP, 53 AD3d 482, 483; Nyitray v New York Athletic Club in City of N.Y., 274 AD2d 326, 327; Matter of Entertainment Partners Group v Davis, 198 AD2d 63,… [read post]
1 Jul 2008, 2:58 pm
State, 969 So.2d 318, 321 (Fla. 2008) ..........................................................12-13 State v. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 9:30 am
There is no doubt that Monday’s majority decision in Burwell v. [read post]
26 Sep 2019, 7:05 am
Greenberg v. [read post]
11 Sep 2022, 2:40 am
To warrant such relief, the plaintiff must make a showing of “egregious conduct or a chronic and extreme pattern of behavior” on the part of the defendant attorneys that caused damages (Savitt v Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 126 AD3d 506, 507 [1st Dept 2015]). [read post]
20 Mar 2009, 9:54 am
V. [read post]
23 Feb 2007, 12:39 am
White, J.), rendered on or about October 11, 2005, unanimously affirmed. ...
11..
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. [read post]
22 May 2023, 7:46 am
Greenberg v. [read post]
2 Jan 2015, 3:15 pm
” In Home Star Bank and Financial Services v. [read post]
2 Jan 2015, 3:15 pm
” In Home Star Bank and Financial Services v. [read post]
22 Feb 2008, 8:23 pm
1-9-2008 California:A City of Los Angeles ordinance authorizing the seizure and forfeiture of vehicles used to solicit prostitution is expressly preempted by state law, this district's Court of Appeal held yesterday.Citing the recent California Supreme Court decision in O'Connell v. [read post]
8 Jan 2024, 7:48 am
Greenberg v. [read post]
5 Aug 2009, 2:56 am
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. [read post]
23 Dec 2010, 5:40 am
Co. v. [read post]
9 Sep 2022, 8:43 am
In support of that conclusion, the court makes this murky statement: “courts in this Circuit have repeatedly held that a plaintiff may state a claim under the Lanham Act where the defendant (1) interfered with the plaintiff’s ability to offer its own commercial services, and/or (2) used the Internet. [read post]
2 Jul 2009, 8:02 am
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. [read post]
24 Mar 2009, 7:00 am
Levine V. [read post]
11 Jun 2009, 7:04 am
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 2:43 pm
Greenberg, 126 N.J. 168, 192 (1991) (citing State v. [read post]
