1,000+ Cases found with keyword search

  1. check_box_outline_blank

    Breau v. Burdick

    2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 7851 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   
    Mark W. Bennett
  2. check_box_outline_blank

    Brown v. Orr

    2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 7905 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   
    Mark W. Bennett
  3. check_box_outline_blank

    Business v. Egan (In re Am. Auto Stock, Inc.)

    2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 7911 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   
    Mark W. Bennett
  4. check_box_outline_blank

    Clark v. Town of Lyonsdale

    2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 7870 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   
    Mark W. Bennett
  5. check_box_outline_blank

    Commonwealth v. Franklin

    J-S46011-18 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 16, 2018)   
    The exception for newly-discovered facts only requires that a petitioner "prove that the facts were unknown to him and that he exercised due diligence in discovering those facts." Commonwealth v. Bennett , 930 A.2d 1264, 1270 (Pa. 2001). Although the PCRA court based its ruling in part on a lack of due diligence, it also prematurely assessed the merits of the underlying claim. See Commonwealth v. Cox , 146 A.3d 221 (Pa.Super. 2016) (rejecting notion that newly-discovered facts exception involves a merits analysis of the underlying claim).
  6. check_box_outline_blank

    Distefano v. Annucci

    2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 7864 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   
    Mark W. Bennett
  7. check_box_outline_blank

    Ditech Fin., LLC v. Corbett

    2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 7862 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   
    Mark W. Bennett
  8. check_box_outline_blank

    Dumond v. N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

    2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 7853 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   
    Mark W. Bennett
  9. check_box_outline_blank

    El v. Smith

    1:17-cv-08849 (SDA) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2018)   
    Further, because Plaintiff is pro se, the Court must construe his submissions liberally and interpret them "to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest." Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (quoting Pabon v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241, 248 (2d Cir. 2006)). "Nevertheless, pro se plaintiffs are not excused from the normal rules of summary judgment, and a pro se party's bald assertion, unsupported by evidence, is not sufficient to overcome a motion for summary judgment." Bennett v. Wesley, No. 11-CV-08715 (JMF), 2013 WL 1798001, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2013) (citing Ortiz v. McBride, 323 F.3d 191, 194 (2d Cir. 2003)).
  10. check_box_outline_blank

    Fayson v. Rent-A-Center E., Inc.

    2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 7863 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   
    Mark W. Bennett
Access all results
Casetext free trial sign up includes:
Unlimited legal research, no out of plan charges
Federal case law, statutes, and regulations
All 50 state case law and statutes
 CARA A.I. contextual search
Citator: Red flags on all overturned cases
Bankruptcy and PTAB
Unique databases: Holdings and Black Letter Law
How cited functionality
Customer Support