Search for: "Weil v. Smith" Results 1 - 20 of 47
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Mar 2020, 9:24 pm by Patent Docs
Adam Banks of Weil, Scott Kamholz of Covington & Burling, and Eliot Williams of Baker Botts will focus on the substantial and fast-moving legal activity unleased by the Federal Circuit's decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Sep 2018, 8:29 am by Danny Jacobs
Torts — Asbestos exposure — Dispute of material fact This appeal arises from the Circuit Court for Baltimore City’s ruling granting Burnham and Weil-McLain’s, appellees, motion to dismiss, Audrey Vitale, and her children, Ralph Vitale, Jr., Tony Vitale, Patricia Smith, Maria Pycha, and Gina Messersmith’s, appellants, wrongful death suit, and the court’s subsequent denial of ... [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 1:18 pm by Bill Araiza
Just a quick note that next Wednesday Cardozo Law School will be hosting a panel discussion on Stern v. [read post]
14 Aug 2014, 9:30 pm by Dan Ernst
DonovanRethinking People v. [read post]
21 Nov 2019, 4:27 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Contrary to Devereaux’s contention, the allegedly defamatory statement made by Burrows was not actionable because it was absolutely privileged as a matter of law (see Brady v Gaudelli, 137 AD3d 951, 952; El Jamal v Weil, 116 AD3d 732, 734; Bisogno v Borsa, 101 AD3d 780, 781; Kilkenny v Law Off. of Cushner & Garvey, LLP, 76 AD3d 512, 513), and does not support a finding of a violation of Judiciary Law § 487 (see Seldon… [read post]
9 Jun 2011, 11:21 am by Andrew Goldberg
Microsoft was represented at trial and before the Federal Circuit by Weil, Gotshal & Manges. [read post]
9 Jun 2011, 11:21 am by Andrew Goldberg
Microsoft was represented at trial and before the Federal Circuit by Weil, Gotshal & Manges. [read post]
9 Jun 2011, 11:21 am by Andrew Goldberg
Microsoft was represented at trial and before the Federal Circuit by Weil, Gotshal & Manges. [read post]
12 Oct 2021, 5:52 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The cause of action alleging defamation failed because the challenged statements were absolutely privileged as a matter of law and cannot be the basis for a defamation action (see Ifantides v Wisniewski, 181 AD3d at 576; Weinstock v Sanders, 144 AD3d at 1021; Brady v Gaudelli, 137 AD3d at 952; El Jamal v Weil, 116 AD3d 732, 734 [2014]; Rabiea v Stein, 69 AD3d at 701). [read post]