This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
In some examples cited in the paper, a Virginia defendant in Virginia charged with transporting marijuana pleaded guilty to trafficking a different type of drug altogether; a NewYork defendant charged with animal cruelty pleaded guilty to trespassing even though no trespassing was involved. The full paper can be accessed here.
Ashley’s a member and mentor, as you heard, of the Alberta Association of Professional Paralegals and an associate member of the Edmonton Law Office Managers Association. This is what she wrote: Ann, I’ve been an avid listener of your podcast and attended a Lunch Learn a long time ago when you were based out of NewYork.
According to the NewYork City Bar Association’s Professional Ethics Committee, a conflict-checking system is a process “by which proposed engagements are checked against current and previous engagements.” . Allows lawyers to communicate with others in the firm who have relevant information.
Ours are not just lawyers. In fact, we include such language in the award because in the NewYork Convention, for example, the US has taken a reservation to that treaty that it will enforce the awards based on reciprocity. So it has to be in a NewYork Convention country. Some are scientists. Some are PhDs.
The question is how such laws should be considered when state-law disputes are brought in federal court under diversity of citizenship jurisdiction because the dispute involves citizens of different states. In such cases, the rule is that federal courts apply state substantive law and federal procedurallaw.
“The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the NewYork Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S. Litigants”, NewYork University Law Review 94 (2019), pp 1210-1243. Coco, Sarah E. Cuniberti, Gilles.
“The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the NewYork Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S. Litigants”, NewYork University Law Review 94 (2019), pp 1210-1243. Coco, Sarah E. Cong, Junqi. Kasem, Rouzana.
Implementing the Hague Judgments Convention”, NewYork University Law Review 97 (2022), forthcoming (Draft available here ). The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the NewYork Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, Cardoso, Connor J. Coco, Sarah E.
“The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the NewYork Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S. Litigants”, NewYork University Law Review 94 (2019), pp 1210-1243. Coco, Sarah E. Cong, Junqi. Kasem, Rouzana.
“The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the NewYork Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S. Litigants”, NewYork University Law Review 94 (2019), pp 1210-1243. Coco, Sarah E. Cong, Junqi. Kasem, Rouzana.
“The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the NewYork Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S. Litigants”, NewYork University Law Review 94 (2019), pp 1210-1243. Coco, Sarah E. Cong, Junqi. Kasem, Rouzana.
Implementing the Hague Judgments Convention”, NewYork University Law Review 97 (2022), forthcoming (Draft available here ). The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the NewYork Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, Cardoso, Connor J. Coco, Sarah E.
Implementing the Hague Judgments Convention”, NewYork University Law Review 97 (2022), forthcoming (Draft available here ). The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the NewYork Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, Cardoso, Connor J. Coco, Sarah E.
Implementing the Hague Judgments Convention”, NewYork University Law Review 97 (2022), forthcoming (Draft available here ). The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the NewYork Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, Cardoso, Connor J. Coco, Sarah E.
In our humble opinion, this global cooperation of legal scholars and practitioners has contributed to making more visible what has been referred to elsewhere as the “College of International Lawyers”. Implementing the Hague Judgments Convention”, NewYork University Law Review 97 (2022), pp. 187-214 Coco, Sarah E.
“, University of Pittsburgh Law Review 82 (2021), pp. 847-880 (available here ) Brannigan, Neil “Resolving conflicts: establishing forum non conveniens in a new Hague jurisdiction convention”, Journal of Private International Law 18 (2022), pp. The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S. 187-214 Coco, Sarah E.
“, University of Pittsburgh Law Review 82 (2021), pp. 847-880 (available here ) Brannigan, Neil “Resolving conflicts: establishing forum non conveniens in a new Hague jurisdiction convention”, Journal of Private International Law 18 (2022), pp. The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S. 187-214 Coco, Sarah E.
Thereafter, aside from successfully resisting Indias efforts to set aside the award in the seat courts in Switzerland, the investors have been successful in having the award recognised as enforceable in the US, Singapore and Germany under the NewYork Convention 1958 ( NYC ). Tellingly, the US Court proclaimed Enough is Enough! .
Beatrice Ficcarelli (Associate Professor at the University of Florence), Lacquisizione di informazioni e prove nella negoziazione assistita da avvocati: la tessera che mancava ( The Acquisition of Information and Evidence in Negotiation Assisted by Lawyers: The Missing Piece of the Puzzle ; in Italian). 150/2022 d.lgs.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content