ELEVENTH AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OF VORNADO REALTY L.P. --------------------------------------------- Dated as of November 24, 1999 THIS ELEVENTH AMENDMENT TO THE SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT...Vornado Realty Trust • December 23rd, 1999 • Real estate investment trusts
EXHIBIT (d)(2) STOCK PLEDGE AGREEMENT This Stock Pledge Agreement (the "Agreement") is made on this _____ day of December, 1995 by and between RICHARD KATCHER, as Successor Trustee of the Masoni Trust (as defined below), hereinafter "Katcher", BRYAN...Stock Pledge Agreement • October 2nd, 2000 • Fair Grounds Corp • Services-racing, including track operation • Ohio
EXHIBIT 10.5 MASTER NATURAL GAS GATHERING AGREEMENT THIS MASTER NATURAL GAS GATHERING AGREEMENT is made as of February 2, 2000, among ATLAS PIPELINE PARTNERS, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, and ATLAS PIPELINE OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P., a...Gas Gathering Agreement • April 11th, 2006 • Atlas Pipeline Holdings, L.P. • Crude petroleum & natural gas
For Whom the Agreement Tolls: Tolling Agreements May Not Toll Claims Against Non-Signatory DefendantsApril 21st, 2024
In Seniah Corp. v. Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP, Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a defendant attorney because the legal malpractice claims at issue—which are subject to a one-year statute of limitations—were time-barred. 5th Dist. Stark No. 2017CA00109, 2018-
For Whom the Agreement Tolls: Tolling Agreements May Not Toll Claims Against Non-Signatory DefendantsApril 5th, 2023
In Seniah Corp. v. Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP, Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a defendant attorney because the legal malpractice claims at issue—which are subject to a one-year statute of limitations—were time-barred. 5th Dist. Stark No. 2017CA00109, 2018-
For Whom the Agreement Tolls: Tolling Agreements May Not Toll Claims Against Non-Signatory DefendantsJune 16th, 2022
In Seniah Corp. v. Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP, Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a defendant attorney because the legal malpractice claims at issue—which are subject to a one-year statute of limitations—were time-barred. 5th Dist. Stark No. 2017CA00109, 2018-
Snyder et al., Appellants, v. Lindsay et al., Appellees.July 2nd, 2004
Interest — Settlement agreement — Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed as to award of interest — Court of appeals’ judgment of remand for an evidentiary hearing reversed — Interest to be computed from date of settlement, consistent with Hartmann v. Duffey.
For Whom the Agreement Tolls: Tolling Agreements May Not Toll Claims Against Non-Signatory DefendantsJune 30th, 2021
In Seniah Corp. v. Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP, Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a defendant attorney because the legal malpractice claims at issue—which are subject to a one-year statute of limitations—were time-barred. 5th Dist. Stark No. 2017CA00109, 2018-
Business Settlement Agreement SampleSettlement Agreement • July 19th, 2021 • Ohio
Choice of Law: This adultery shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the met of significant State without reference to its provisions regarding choice in law.
Settlement Agreement Non Disparagement ClauseSettlement Agreement • May 26th, 2022
Contain non-disparagement clauses that bind both the homeowner plaintiff. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association. Business Disparagement is different than defamation in regards to the right it protects. The same would hold true if the confidentiality clause were to apply to any other form of knowledge gained by the attorney during the representation, in the absence of his execution of this Release, for which Ms. It could be anything. Employers must provide a copy of the policies to each employee at the time of hire and make the policies available to employees within the workplace. Bank or the termination of that employment. Agreeing to such a request can prove challenging because it is very difficult to guarantee that no one employed at the company will speak ill of the former employee. The declaration
For Whom the Agreement Tolls: Tolling Agreements May Not Toll Claims Against Non-Signatory DefendantsJune 30th, 2021
In Seniah Corp. v. Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP, Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a defendant attorney because the legal malpractice claims at issue—which are subject to a one-year statute of limitations—were time-barred. 5th Dist. Stark No. 2017CA00109, 2018-
For Whom the Agreement Tolls: Tolling Agreements May Not Toll Claims Against Non-Signatory DefendantsJune 30th, 2021
In Seniah Corp. v. Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP, Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a defendant attorney because the legal malpractice claims at issue—which are subject to a one-year statute of limitations—were time-barred. 5th Dist. Stark No. 2017CA00109, 2018-
For Whom the Agreement Tolls: Tolling Agreements May Not Toll Claims Against Non-Signatory DefendantsOctober 6th, 2021
In Seniah Corp. v. Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP, Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a defendant attorney because the legal malpractice claims at issue—which are subject to a one-year statute of limitations—were time-barred. 5th Dist. Stark No. 2017CA00109, 2018-
Huff et al., Appellees, v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al.; Ohio Edison Company et al., Appellants.March 1st, 2012
For an injured third party to qualify as an intended third-party beneficiary under a written contract, the contract must indicate an intention to benefit that third party.
Indiana Purchase Agreement Improved PropertyIndiana Purchase Agreement Improved Property • August 30th, 2021
aBrumlloukr-ypalanteddligwnhifeonrmdoTgagilionrgstsillomesddeismmeaanntslehrsisvbeeryllopwaesrsiivnesluypapnredsfslaibtulyle. nIstlyH?eCnrhikaranlwelaRysicartydpeicxaclualpnadtes some
Kostelnik, Exr., Appellant, v. Helper et al., Appellees.July 2nd, 2004
{¶1} On June 9, 1995, appellant, Michael R. Kostelnik, Jr., as executor of the estate of Jacqueline M. Kostelnik, filed a wrongful-death action against appellee Steven D. Helper, M.D., and appellee Meridia Hillcrest Hospital. The complaint alleged that Jacqueline M. Kostelnik’s death was proximately caused by the negligence of Dr. Helper and Meridia Hillcrest Hospital. The trial was set for September 29, 1997. However, on that day, in the presence of the trial judge, Kostelnik agreed to settle the case against Dr. Helper and Hillcrest Hospital. Accordingly, the parties filed a “Stipulation for Dismissal and Judgment Entry,” which read, “Settled and Dismissed with prejudice at Defendant’s costs. No record.” The judge and all the parties signed the entry.
For Whom the Agreement Tolls: Tolling Agreements May Not Toll Claims Against Non-Signatory DefendantsJuly 1st, 2022
In Seniah Corp. v. Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP, Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a defendant attorney because the legal malpractice claims at issue—which are subject to a one-year statute of limitations—were time-barred. 5th Dist. Stark No. 2017CA00109, 2018-
Does Nuvasive Require A Non Compete AgreementJanuary 25th, 2022
onmtippaetthiteivtieclay,llyshpeapaisllcoesned, sBaitrmroanrvdealtleoluinselys. eTihkyomnsicaannddosuytnshcihnreomweosohlleCnu. rAtirsacmhasrhioatmsbolidnigrtihlyerthvailtlaPinasrk
For Whom the Agreement Tolls: Tolling Agreements May Not Toll Claims Against Non-Signatory DefendantsJune 30th, 2021
In Seniah Corp. v. Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP, Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a defendant attorney because the legal malpractice claims at issue—which are subject to a one-year statute of limitations—were time-barred. 5th Dist. Stark No. 2017CA00109, 2018-
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASEClass Action Settlement Agreement and Release • June 12th, 2021 • Ohio
This Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release dated June 8, 2021 (the “Agreement”), is made and entered into by and among: (i) Class Representative Plaintiffs Miles Black, Melissa Black a.k.a. Melissa Hyde, Lorraine Morris, John Perfette, Samuel Rotz, and John Beal (“Class Representatives” or “Plaintiffs”) and (ii) Defendant Blue Line Solutions, LLC (“Blue Line”) (collectively, the “Settling Parties”). The Agreement is intended to fully, finally, and forever resolve, discharge, and settle the Released Claims (as defined herein) as against Blue Line (as defined herein) only, subject to the approval of the Court and the terms and conditions set forth
