Search for: "State v. Waggoner" Results 41 - 60 of 69
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Dec 2011, 2:52 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
"The court erred in finding that plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for legal [*2]malpractice as against Fogarty. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 3:54 am by Edith Roberts
At National Review’s Bench Memos blog, Kristen Waggoner urges the court to review Arlene’s Flowers v. [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 4:21 am by Edith Roberts
The first was Christie v. [read post]
18 Dec 2018, 4:29 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Further, a legal malpractice claim cannot be stated if there is no attorney-client relationship between the parties (Waggoner v Caruso, 68 AD3d 1, 3 [1st Dept 2009], affd 14 NY3d 874 [2010]). [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 4:07 am by Edith Roberts
United States and Collins v. [read post]
6 Jul 2020, 3:38 am by Edith Roberts
At Townhall, Kristen Waggoner laments that the court’s decision in June Medical Services v. [read post]
27 Feb 2018, 4:15 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The Amended Complaint alleges that Todtman Nachamie represented plaintiffs from August 2004 until April 2005, whereupon RFS represented plaintiffs from April 20058 until April 2012. 9 Plaintiffs rely on two cases which apply the continuous representation doctrine to toll the statute of limitations as to a prior law firm’s representation when attorneys from a prior firm left and moved to another firm (HNH Intl., Ltd. v Pryor Cashman Sherman & Flynn, 63 AD3d 534 [l st Dept… [read post]
22 Jan 2018, 4:18 pm by Kevin LaCroix
Defendants May Rebut the Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption by the Preponderance of the Evidence, Which Does Not Require “Conclusive” Evidence Adhering to its prior decision in Waggoner v. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 8:32 am by Steve Hall
“It made me feel like I was back in 1960, that racism is still very much alive,” Laverne Keys, who was excluded in the 1999 case State v. [read post]
6 Jul 2018, 4:07 am by Edith Roberts
At Understanding the ADA, William Goren notes that the court’s opinion in South Dakota v. [read post]