Sign in to follow
Search Results

0 results for 'Riker Danzig Scherer'

You can use to get even better search results
July 28, 2003 |

Opinions Approved for Publication

State court opinions approved for publication.
9 minute read
February 03, 2003 |

Calendar

5 minute read
February 10, 2003 |

Calendar

5 minute read
September 28, 2007 |

On the Move

Announcements about lawyers, firms and judges.
2 minute read
October 28, 2002 |

Inadmissible

4 minute read
January 25, 2003 |

Calendar

5 minute read
July 28, 2003 |

In re G-I Holdings, Inc. et al,

In this adversary proceeding for damages for asbestos-related injuries against a subsidiary of the debtor, sound judicial administration, efficiency, and fairness require that the issue of whether liability has flowed to the nonbankrupt subsidiary be resolved before the District Court and, therefore, the motion to withdraw the standing order of reference, which provides the Bankruptcy Court with jurisdiction, is granted with respect to this issue.
9 minute read
August 22, 2005 |

In re G-I Holdings, Inc.

Where plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its subsidiaries cannot be held liable for the asbestos-related claims against it under any theory of successor liability or "alter ego" (piercing the corporate veil), its motion to strike defendants' jury demand is denied as to both issues since had defendants initiated an action for recovery on their claims, they would have been seeking monetary damages which is a legal remedy entitling them to a jury trial, as is piercing the corporate veil.
12 minute read
September 28, 2009 |

2009 Ineligible List

Notice to the bar.
388 minute read
May 24, 2004 |

Patel v. Soriano

Where plaintiff alleged that defendant, chief of surgery, sabotaged plaintiff's application for privileges at the hospital and communicated false statements about him, plaintiff did not demonstrate the concerted-action element of a restraint-of-trade claim under N.J.S.A. 56:9-3 or an unlawful purpose or anticompetitive effect for a claim under 56:9-3; that the hospital may have acquiesced to defendant's unreasonable demands and chosen to let him "run the show" is not proof of an unlawful agreement.
30 minute read

TRENDING STORIES

    More from ALM

    More from ALM

    Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.

    Resources