Search for: "U. S. v. Hastings" Results 1 - 20 of 79
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Feb 2015, 4:25 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The legal malpractice cause of action should not be dismissed because it cannot be concluded as a matter of law from the allegations in the complaint that defendant had no duty to monitor the transaction at issue for plaintiffs, including requesting copies of and ascertaining the status of documents required by the issuer for the stock sale to go forward (see Katz v Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP, 19 Misc 3d 1121(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 50796[U] [Sup Ct, NY County… [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 4:25 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The legal malpractice cause of action should not be dismissed because it cannot be concluded as a matter of law from the allegations in the complaint that defendant had no duty to monitor the transaction at issue for plaintiffs, including requesting copies of and ascertaining the status of documents required by the issuer for the stock sale to go forward (see Katz v Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP, 19 Misc 3d 1121(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 50796[U] [Sup Ct, NY County… [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 4:25 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The legal malpractice cause of action should not be dismissed because it cannot be concluded as a matter of law from the allegations in the complaint that defendant had no duty to monitor the transaction at issue for plaintiffs, including requesting copies of and ascertaining the status of documents required by the issuer for the stock sale to go forward (see Katz v Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP, 19 Misc 3d 1121(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 50796[U] [Sup Ct, NY County… [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 4:25 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The legal malpractice cause of action should not be dismissed because it cannot be concluded as a matter of law from the allegations in the complaint that defendant had no duty to monitor the transaction at issue for plaintiffs, including requesting copies of and ascertaining the status of documents required by the issuer for the stock sale to go forward (see Katz v Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP, 19 Misc 3d 1121(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 50796[U] [Sup Ct, NY County… [read post]
27 Feb 2013, 2:37 pm by Jack McNeill
The National Institutes of Health, patents, and the public interest: an expanded rationale of Justice Breyer’s dissent in Stanford v. [read post]
15 Apr 2014, 4:21 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Patel v Scheurer  2014 NY Slip Op 30923(U)  April 4, 2014  Supreme Court, New York County  Docket Number: 650185/08  Judge: Saliann Scarpulla. [read post]
31 May 2014, 4:57 am by Robert Kreisman
Related blog posts: Illinois Non-Competition Agreement is Not Valid and Enforceable if Employee is Fired or Resigns Within Two Years Illinois Appellate Court Reverses Trial Court’s Finding Regarding Borrowed Employee Status; Hastings v. [read post]
21 Mar 2007, 12:46 am
California, Hastings College of Law (moderator); Laura Dickinson, U. [read post]