Search for: "Steinberger v. Steinberger"
Results 21 - 40
of 353
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 May 2023, 11:10 am
In Pride v. [read post]
25 May 2023, 10:43 am
Steinberg v. [read post]
3 May 2023, 1:26 pm
In Lassiter v. [read post]
19 Apr 2023, 9:05 pm
The next three mechanisms of (iv) better communication with stakeholders, (v) better planning for the future, and (vi) synthesis of procedures and values more overtly include sustainability and social justice choices. [read post]
7 Apr 2023, 10:54 am
DiGiacomo v. [read post]
29 Mar 2023, 6:00 am
The first issue includes: Exploring the (Dormant) Indian Commerce Clause by Maxwell Steinberg Original Meaning and Legislative Intent in McGirt v. [read post]
24 Mar 2023, 6:30 am
United States, Rule 10b-5, SEC enforcement, Securities fraud, United States v. [read post]
24 Mar 2023, 6:30 am
United States, Rule 10b-5, SEC enforcement, Securities fraud, United States v. [read post]
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]
