Filter This View

  • December 17, 2010 | The Recorder

    Southbound Traffic

    SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco isn't the financial center it once was, nor the one it was once hoped to be. So perhaps it shouldn't have been a surprise when Skadden, Arps, Slate,

    1 minute read

  • People v. Schrier

    Publication Date: 2010-11-23
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2010-11-23
    Court: C.A. 2nd
    Judge:
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General, James M. Humes, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mark Geiger, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Susan Melton Bartholomew, Supervising Attorney General, David Haxton, Deputy Attorney General, for Appellant.
    for defendant: Alexander W. Kirkpatrick, for Peter R. Shrier, Respondent. Michael D. Nasatir, for Arkady Rozenberg, Respondent. Vicki I. Poderesky; for Ella Rozenberg, Respondent. Alan S. Yockelson, Todd L. Melnik, for Gersha Gravich, Respondent. Kestenbaum, Eisner & Gorin, Dmitry Gorin; Dennis A. Fischer, for Anna Gravich, Respondent.
    Case Number: No. B218424

    Cite as 10 C.D.O.S. 14621THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PETER SHRIER et al., Defendants and Respondent

  • September 26, 2011 | New Jersey Law Journal

    Attorney Ineligibility Order Pursuant to Rule 1:28-2(a)

    SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY Pursuant to Rule 1:28-2, the Trustees of the New Jersey Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (Fund) have reported to the Supreme Court the names of those attorneys

    1 minute read

  • September 20, 2007 | New Jersey Law Journal

    Attorney Ineligibility Order Pursuant to Rule 1:28-2(a)

    Pursuant to Rule 1:28-2, the Trustees of the New Jersey Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection have reported to the Supreme Court the names of those attorneys who have neither made full payment t

    1 minute read

  • United States of America v. Steven Warshak

    Publication Date: 2010-12-19
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2010-12-14
    Court: 6th Cir.
    Judge: Boggs, Circuit Judge.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: (08-3997/4085, 09-3176),, (08-3997/4087/4429),, (08-3997/4212)

    Nos. 08-3997/4085/4087/ 4212/4429; 09-3176RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATIONPursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206File Name: 10a0377p.06Argued: June 16, 2010Before: KEITH, BOGGS, and McK

  • October 24, 2013 | New Jersey Law Journal

    Ineligible Pro Hac Vice Attorneys, In-House Counsel and Multijurisdictional Practitioners

    Pro hac vice attorneys, in-house counsel, and multijurisdictional practitioners attorneys are subject to the same requirements as licensed members of the New Jersey Bar under a number of Cour

    1 minute read

  • Satterfield v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2008-09-02
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2008-08-29
    Court: Tex. App. Dist. 3
    Judge: Jan P. Patterson, Justice
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 03-04-00518-CV

    OPINIONThe issue presented is whether a statute that extinguishes a litigant's right to pursue an accrued and pending common law cause of action--without providing a grace period--transcends the le

  • October 26, 2012 | New Jersey Law Journal

    Ineligible Pro Hac Vice Attorneys, In-House Counsel and Multijurisdictional Practitioners

    Pro hac vice attorneys, in-house counsel, and multijurisdictional practitioners attorneys are subject to the same requirements as licensed members of the New Jersey Bar under a number of Cour

    1 minute read

  • December 9, 2004 | New York Law Journal

    Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.

    248 NY 339HELEN PALSGRAF, Respondent,v.THE LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant. ------------------------------------------------------------

    1 minute read

  • Satterfield v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2008-10-06
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2008-08-29
    Court: Tex. App. Dist. 3
    Judge: Jan P. Patterson, Justice
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: NO. 03-04-00518-CV

    OPINIONThe issue presented is whether a statute that extinguishes a litigant's right to pursue an accrued and pending common law cause of action--without providing a grace period--transcends the le