Search for: "Sullivan v. Murphy" Results 1 - 20 of 55
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Jun 2010, 2:00 pm
Finally, in 2004, an Illinois court explicitly held that a physician was not qualified to testify as to the standard of care for the nursing profession under the laws of the state of Illinois (Sullivan v Edward Hospital, 806 NE2d 645 [Ill 2004]). [read post]
31 Jul 2023, 4:47 pm by INFORRM
In the court below (6 F4th 1160 (10th Cir, 2021)), the majority of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (Briscoe J, Murphy J concurring; Tymkovich CJ dissenting) held that, although the appellant’s First Amendment rights were engaged, the State satisfied strict scrutiny: Colorado had a compelling interest in ensuring equal access to publicly available goods and services, and no option short of coercing speech could satisfy that interest. [read post]
2 Oct 2017, 4:18 am by Edith Roberts
Kara Goad and Elizabeth Sullivan preview the case for Cornell. [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 2:48 am by IAN SKELT
  It is self-evident that any case which includes express reference to (amongst others) Donoghue v Stevenson, Hedley Byrne v Heller, Anns v Merton, Murphy v Brentwood, Caparo v Dickman, Stovin v Wise is going to be of importance. [read post]
21 May 2010, 10:10 am by Jacob Katz Cogan
National Prosecution of International Crimes: Cases and LegislationJames Yap, Corporate Civil Liability for War Crimes in Canadian Courts: Lessons from Bil'in (Village Council) v. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 4:08 pm by INFORRM
And, in Murphy v Callinan [2018] IESC 59 (30 November 2018) [36]-[44], Baker J (Clarke CJ and Dunne J concurring) in the Supreme Court approved Feeney J’s analysis in Collins (I will return to this case in a future post). [read post]
15 Nov 2008, 9:10 am
Absent a specific request for coverage not already in a client's policy, or the existence of a special relationship with the client, an insurance agent or broker has no continuing duty to advise, guide or direct a client to obtain additional coverage (see Murphy v Kuhn, supra; JKT Construction v United States Liab. [read post]
1 Nov 2021, 5:01 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Co., 116 AD3d 740, 741, quoting Loevner v Sullivan & Strauss Agency, Inc., 35 AD3d 392, 393). [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 6:52 am by INFORRM
This was approved by Sullivan CJ in the Irish Supreme Court in Sinclair v Gogarty [1937] IR 377 (see also Gallagher v Tuohy (1924) 58 ILTR 134 (Murnaghan J); Connolly v Radio Telifís Eireann [1991] 2 IR 446 (Carroll J); Reynolds v Malocco [1999] 2 IR 203, [1999] 1 ILRM 289, [1998] IEHC 175 (11 December 1998) (Kelly J)); and it represents the law in Australia (Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill [2006] HCA 46 (28 September… [read post]