Search for: "State v. McGrath" Results 61 - 80 of 186
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Jan 2024, 6:52 pm by Amy Howe
He urged the state court to apply a test outlined by the Supreme Court in two property rights cases, Nollan v. [read post]
7 Feb 2008, 4:09 am
Samuel Cosentino, Plaintiff-Appellant, v Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C., Defendant-Respondent. [read post]
7 Feb 2008, 4:09 am
Samuel Cosentino, Plaintiff-Appellant, v Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C., Defendant-Respondent. [read post]
15 Jun 2012, 2:49 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
These allegations are sufficient to state a claim for legal malpractice (see Garnett v Fox, Horan & Camerini, LLP, 82 AD3d 435, 435 [2011]; see generally Tortura v Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C., 21 AD3d 1082, 1083 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 701 [2005]). [read post]
15 May 2017, 7:59 am by Andrea Brewer
McGrath[1] stated that a court’s power to call a general meeting of shareholders under section 186 of the Act should only be exercised in extraordinary circumstances. [read post]
18 Oct 2012, 3:22 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
It follows that "[the] selection of one among several reasonable courses of action does not constitute malpractice" (Rosner v Paley, 65 NY2d 736, 738; see Dimond v Kazmierczuk & McGrath, 15 AD3d 526, 527). [read post]
7 Nov 2018, 12:44 pm by Scott Bomboy
And in 1926, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Howard Taft said in Myers v. [read post]
3 Oct 2019, 4:32 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The complaint also fails to sufficiently allege that the subject settlement plaintiff agreed to in open court, was “effectively compelled by the mistakes of counsel” (Tortura v Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P. [read post]
21 Aug 2023, 4:45 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The letter, inter alia, stated that the plaintiffs had multiple options available to them to avoid losing the home, including filing a bankruptcy petition. [read post]
28 Dec 2016, 9:01 pm by Joanna L. Grossman
This is the point, in the words of the Virginia Supreme Court in McGrath v. [read post]
2 Jun 2009, 4:18 am
[citations omitted]; see also Pedro v Walker, 46 AD3d 789; Lichtenstein v Barenbaum, 23 AD3d 440; Porello v Longworth, 21 AD3d 541; Dimond v Kazmierczuk & McGrath, 15 AD3d 526; Iannarone v Gramer, 256 AD2d 443, 444). [read post]