Search for: "Walden v. Davis"
Results 1 - 13
of 13
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Dec 2021, 6:00 am
In this decisions the Appellate Division explains that "[n]o appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue (see Budin v Davis, 172 AD3d 1676, 1679 [2019]) and, therefore, the only issue before it in its considering this action was the propriety of the Supreme Court's denial of petitioner's motion to renew. [read post]
26 Dec 2021, 5:30 am
In this decisions the Appellate Division explains that "[n]o appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue (see Budin v Davis, 172 AD3d 1676, 1679 [2019]) and, therefore, the only issue before it in its considering this action was the propriety of the Supreme Court's denial of petitioner's motion to renew. [read post]
31 Dec 2021, 4:00 am
In this decisions the Appellate Division explains that "[n]o appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue (see Budin v Davis, 172 AD3d 1676, 1679 [2019]) and, therefore, the only issue before it in its considering this action was the propriety of the Supreme Court's denial of petitioner's motion to renew. [read post]
26 Dec 2021, 5:30 am
In this decisions the Appellate Division explains that "[n]o appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue (see Budin v Davis, 172 AD3d 1676, 1679 [2019]) and, therefore, the only issue before it in its considering this action was the propriety of the Supreme Court's denial of petitioner's motion to renew. [read post]
29 Dec 2021, 6:00 am
In this decisions the Appellate Division explains that "[n]o appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue (see Budin v Davis, 172 AD3d 1676, 1679 [2019]) and, therefore, the only issue before it in its considering this action was the propriety of the Supreme Court's denial of petitioner's motion to renew. [read post]
31 Dec 2021, 4:00 am
In this decisions the Appellate Division explains that "[n]o appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue (see Budin v Davis, 172 AD3d 1676, 1679 [2019]) and, therefore, the only issue before it in its considering this action was the propriety of the Supreme Court's denial of petitioner's motion to renew. [read post]
25 Feb 2013, 7:30 pm
Davis v. [read post]
13 Apr 2009, 9:41 am
The court disagrees with the argument of Professor Davies that the configuration necessary for the Walden inversion would not occur in the diol, since it does not take into account intra molecular movements which will always result in the occurrence of the correct configuration for the SN2-reaction to take place. [read post]
5 Feb 2021, 10:51 am
., was involved in the landmark case Heart of Atlanta Motel v. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 12:48 am
With Steven Barnett, Perry Keller, Ashley Roughton, Ian Walden. [read post]
20 Oct 2016, 6:26 am
Walden v. [read post]
3 Apr 2020, 12:00 am
Part V addresses three arguments against universal mask wearing. [read post]
5 Dec 2007, 7:39 am
Below you will find the UCP affiliates for New York: UCP of Greater Suffolk 250 Marcus Boulevard Hauppauge, NY 11788 Phone: (631) 232-0011 Fax: (631) 232-4422 E-mail: info@ucp-suffolk.org Web: http://www.ucp-suffolk.org 159 Indian Head Road Commack, NY 11725 Phone: (631) 543-4500 Fax: (631) 543-5162 51-33 Terryville Road Port Jefferson Station, NY 11776 Phone: (631) 474-5100 Fax: (631) 474-5100 9 Smiths Lane Commack, NY 11725 Phone: (631) 543-2338 Fax: (631) 543-5162 48 Jagger Lane… [read post]
