Search for: "State v. King" Results 441 - 460 of 5,427
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Jun 2015, 10:37 am by Devin Montgomery
The US Supreme Court [official website] on Thursday ruled [opinion, PDF] 6-3 in King v. [read post]
28 Apr 2025, 5:06 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“On July 1, 2021, plaintiff Doron Zanani commenced a special proceeding, by notice of petition and petition alleging that defendants retained him to represent them in three lawsuits filed in New York State Supreme Court, Kings County, in 2014, 2018, and 2019 (the “Kings County Actions”), but discharged him on June 8, 2021, without cause (NYSCEF Doc No. 1, complaint at ¶¶6, 19, 22, 39, 58). [read post]
4 May 2012, 9:43 am by Lyle Denniston
  The issue has divided lower federal and state courts, and the case of King v. [read post]
28 Dec 2012, 10:28 am by lennyesq
  The New York State Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Matter of Michael D’Angelo v Nicholas Scoppetta serves as an important reminder that the term “reprimand” may be interpreted more broadly than public employers anticipate. [read post]
28 Dec 2012, 10:28 am by lennyesq
  The New York State Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Matter of Michael D’Angelo v Nicholas Scoppetta serves as an important reminder that the term “reprimand” may be interpreted more broadly than public employers anticipate. [read post]
10 Mar 2007, 2:20 pm
Special master Michael Patrick King ruled, in State v. [read post]
22 Jun 2022, 3:58 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Lee Anav Chung White Kim Ruger & Richter LLP v Capone  2022 NY Slip Op 31731(U) May 25, 2022 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 657197/2020 Judge: Arlene Bluth stands for the proposition that an account stated is stronger than almost any defense. [read post]
13 Oct 2014, 8:07 am
His play King Henry V is a sustained and powerful meditation on the interrelationships of all three. [read post]
8 Nov 2014, 7:58 am by Brian Peterson
 There was, perhaps, some room for argument about what "subject to" meant, but the court cleared that up yesterday in King v. [read post]