|
| |
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases —
for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case —
for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more.
lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
|
| |
State Courts -
New York - August 16, 2007
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Buckley v. Columbia Grammar & Preparatory, 9091,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, August 16, 2007, Decided, August 16, 2007, Entered
View this case - free
|
Overview: Elevator mechanic's helper failed to establish a Labor Law § 240(1) claim against a property owner and a project manager because it was not foreseeable that the counterweights that fell on the helper while he was testing a car platform posed an elevation-related hazard inherent in testing the functioning of the platform.
|
|
| |
Cartesian Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Robeco USA, 178,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, August 16, 2007, Decided, August 16, 2007, Entered
View this case - free
|
Overview: Although a dismissal in a prior Massachusetts action was for lack of jurisdiction, which was not an adjudication on the merits under Mass.R.Civ.P. 41(b)(3), a finding that two LLC employees were acting outside the scope of their employment precluded direct claims against the LLC alleging negligent supervision in a Connecticut case.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Estate of Yaron Ungar v. Palestinian Auth., 1213N,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, August 16, 2007, Decided, August 16, 2007, Entered
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because the deposition of a critical witness was not completed by day's end, due in part to the witness's inordinate slowness in answering questions, and because only one more day was needed to complete the deposition, the motion court erred in declining the plaintiffs' request to continue the deposition on another date.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
