Search for: "Steinberger v. Steinberger"
Results 21 - 40
of 374
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Feb 2023, 9:05 pm
ENDNOTES 1 SEC v. [read post]
1 Feb 2023, 9:01 pm
Thank you Thomas [Kim] for that lovely introduction and I’m very pleased to be here at the Securities Regulation Institute giving the Alan B. [read post]
28 Nov 2022, 6:30 am
In 2008, District of Columbia v. [read post]
6 Sep 2022, 6:12 am
” “Other disqualification cases in New York followed Steinberg. [read post]
29 Aug 2022, 4:40 am
Origins of the Doctrine The original and leading case in New York on shareholder derivative plaintiff conflicts of interest is Steinberg v Steinberg (106 Misc 2d 720 [Sup Ct, NY County 1980]), in which the Court ruled that a derivative plaintiff must “demonstrate that she will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the shareholders and the corporation, and that she is free of adverse personal interest or animus. [read post]
11 Jul 2022, 3:47 am
The three-year statute of limitations began to run on March 16, 2017, when a consent to change attorney form was executed by plaintiff, defendant Wallace Law Office, and defendant Leav & Steinberg, LLP (L&S), the incoming counsel (CPLR 214 [6]; Frost Line Refrig., Inc. v Gastwirth, Mirsky & Stein, LLP, 25 AD3d 532, 532-533 [2d Dept 2006]). [read post]
20 May 2022, 2:44 pm
Vermont National Telephone Company v. [read post]
16 May 2022, 4:00 am
The leading case on interracial marriage, Loving v. [read post]
11 Apr 2022, 9:32 am
The case is Grano v. [read post]
6 Apr 2022, 9:05 pm
The second example focuses on Stone v. [read post]
6 Apr 2022, 4:17 am
The three-year statute of limitations began to run on March 16, 2017, when a consent to change attorney form was executed by plaintiff, defendant Wallace Law Office, and defendant Leav & Steinberg, LLP (L&S), the incoming counsel (CPLR 214[6]; Frost Line Refrig., Inc. v Gaswirth, Mirsky & Stein, LLP, 25 AD3d 532, 532-533 [2d Dept 2006]). [read post]
South Africa: Defamation and vindication, the Supreme Court of Appeal’s flawed approach – Dario Milo
26 Mar 2022, 5:31 pm
Dario Milo is a partner at Webber Wentzel attorneys and acted for Trevor Manuel in the Manuel v EFF case, with advocates Wim Trengove SC, Carol Steinberg SC and Michael Mbikiwa. [read post]
20 Mar 2022, 5:36 pm
The Evan Law blog has a summary of the recent decision Allen v. [read post]
5 Nov 2021, 3:30 am
That’s when my partners Amy Epstein Gluck, David Renner, Sid Steinberg, Gordon Berger and I will be back on Zoom to dig deeper into the COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) and answer all of your questions in a way that doesn’t involve giving any actual legal advice or creating an attorney-client relationship. [read post]
3 Sep 2021, 3:30 am
Wainwright and Lassiter v. [read post]
25 Jul 2021, 5:13 am
Michael Steinberg Colorado Criminal Defense Lawyer Introduction – A Massive ChangeTo Plea Bargains in the Colorado Criminal Justice System Quietly, with little fanfare, the Colorado Supreme Court, in the case of People of the State of Colorado, v. [read post]
23 May 2021, 5:41 am
Michael Steinberg Colorado Criminal Defense Lawyer Introduction – A Massively Important Decision for Colorado Criminal Law In late 2019 the Colorado Supreme Court unanimously decided Allman v People. [read post]
13 May 2021, 8:11 am
Steinberg v Schnapp, 73 AD3d 171, 176 [1st Dept 2010]). [read post]
8 May 2021, 10:00 am
In Lassiter v. [read post]
29 Apr 2021, 5:05 am
Michael Steinberg Colorado Criminal Defense Lawyer Introduction – the Issue – Search and Seizure of Your Car When You Are Arrested While I have written on this subject in the past, a recent Colorado case, People v Thomas, has brought the issue of the seizure, and inventory searches of vehicles once again to the attention of criminal defense lawyers across the state. [read post]
