Search for: "State v. Purcell"
Results 61 - 80
of 184
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jul 2020, 6:23 am
In Merrill v. [read post]
8 Jul 2020, 8:10 pm
Citing the court’s 2006 decision in Purcell v. [read post]
8 Jul 2020, 2:59 pm
Purcell v. [read post]
7 Jun 2020, 1:17 am
A decision from a Seattle area trial court sustained a challenge similar to the Utah challenge to an expert witness proffered by plaintiffs’ firm Brayton Purcell. [read post]
15 May 2020, 4:30 am
Second, Colorado Department of State v. [read post]
4 May 2020, 7:12 am
Well, unexpected if you didn’t read what the lower courts were doing and only focused on certain opposition to the Supreme Court’s decision in RNC v. [read post]
24 Apr 2020, 7:06 pm
” Santos and Adler referred to that principle as the “Purcell principle” referring to the case Purcell v. [read post]
20 Apr 2020, 12:49 pm
Professor Rick Hasen has some thoughts on RNC v. [read post]
19 Apr 2020, 9:00 pm
Surely it can’t be the rule that the Court cannot fix a Purcell error because doing so violates Purcell; if so, then lower courts could ignore Purcell with impunity.But we want to set aside Purcell, and its emphasis on remedial latitude, to examine a much more fundamental question: was there, to use the language we do above, “a strong and imminent likelihood of a federal violation (constitutional or statutory)” for the district judge in Wisconsin… [read post]
12 Apr 2020, 9:01 pm
To think that the Purcell principle controlled in RNC v. [read post]
6 Apr 2020, 5:03 pm
See Purcell v. [read post]
6 Apr 2020, 3:33 am
” At The George Washington Law Review’s On the Docket blog, Jasper Tran and Cameron Baker write that Allen v. [read post]
23 Jul 2019, 5:55 am
The Court of Appeals holds for the first time in a published ruling that a three year statute of limitation applies.The case is Purcell v. [read post]
5 May 2019, 4:41 pm
United States The New York Law Journal reports that a libel claim filed [read post]
29 Apr 2019, 4:40 am
The complaint further alleges that the defendant’s negligence proximately caused the plaintiffs to sustain actual and ascertainable damages in lost rent and in settling the action brought by the Hive, and thus, validly states a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d at 443; Bua v Purcell & Ingrao, P.C., 99 AD3d 843, 847; Wolstencroft v Sassower, 124… [read post]
5 Nov 2018, 4:02 am
” Bua v Purcell & Ingrao, P.C., 99 AD3d 843, 848 (2nd Dept 2012). [read post]
31 Oct 2018, 10:42 am
The oral argument on Tuesday in Washington State Department of Licensing v. [read post]
13 Oct 2018, 6:08 am
Part IV outlines proposed national and state reforms. [read post]
11 Jul 2018, 4:20 am
In Harris v Barbera 2018 NY Slip Op 05023 Decided on July 5, 2018 Appellate Division, Second Department (without much explanation) held that while the complaint stated a cause of action for failing to illuminate marital dissipation, the proofs were not. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 2:05 pm
Second, ambiguous legal issues can exacerbate time considerations when determining whether a preliminary injunction would significantly damage the public interest in orderly elections as described Purcell v. [read post]
