Search for: "State v. Greenberg" Results 141 - 160 of 550
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Jan 2008, 6:36 am
Greenberg, ed., The Torture Debate in America (Cambridge UP 2006). [read post]
30 Dec 2010, 3:43 am
The court’s conclusion with respect to the penalty imposed by the arbitrator: the remedy of reinstatement without back pay and benefits was well within the arbitrator ‘s authority.On a related point, in Greenberg v Bear, Stearns & Co. [read post]
22 Mar 2021, 5:16 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
At the same time, “to survive a … preanswer dismissal motion, a pleading need only state allegations from which damages attributable to the defendant’s conduct may be reasonably inferred” (Lappin v Greenberg. 34 AD3d 277, 279 [1st Dept 2006] [internal citations omitted]). [read post]
23 Nov 2007, 12:26 am
DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKLegal Profession Woman Hurt in Accident With Truck Must Pay Fee To Law Firm Discharged in Favor of Other Counsel Greenberg v. [read post]
12 Feb 2009, 9:19 pm
Any Greenberg students out there who can tell me what the Erie issue was? [read post]
20 Jan 2023, 3:45 pm by John A. Emmons
Anderson sat down with professors Chimène Keitner and Ingrid Wuerth to discuss oral arguments in United States v. [read post]
5 Aug 2019, 12:20 pm by Chris Attig
And Judge Greenberg encapsulated well this concern in his dissenting opinion: “Section 3.654(b) does not merely “create a mechanism by which VA manages compensation benefits when veterans return to active duty,” as the majority states, it also creates an unnecessary and inappropriate impediment to a veteran receiving benefits he has already established entitlement to. [read post]
5 Aug 2019, 12:20 pm by Chris Attig
And Judge Greenberg encapsulated well the obvious concern the majority side-stepped in his dissenting opinion: “Section 3.654(b) does not merely “create a mechanism by which VA manages compensation benefits when veterans return to active duty,” as the majority states, it also creates an unnecessary and inappropriate impediment to a veteran receiving benefits he has already established entitlement to. [read post]
5 Aug 2019, 12:20 pm by Chris Attig
And Judge Greenberg encapsulated well the obvious concern the majority side-stepped in his dissenting opinion: “Section 3.654(b) does not merely “create a mechanism by which VA manages compensation benefits when veterans return to active duty,” as the majority states, it also creates an unnecessary and inappropriate impediment to a veteran receiving benefits he has already established entitlement to. [read post]
16 Nov 2012, 1:50 pm by Bexis
Nov. 8, 2012), primarily concerning its fraudulent joinder holding – in accord with the “overwhelming weight of authority” in other states – that a hospital cannot be strictly liable for claimed defects in drugs and medical devices that are used in medical procedures within its walls. [read post]