Sentences with phrase «appellants claim»

Appellants claim to share a common cause with the City, to defeat plaintiffs» CEQA claim and to reduce the rate of killing feral cats.

After the July 4 announcement, the appellant claims the shares jumped from $ 35.15 to $ 39.50, about 12 %; and the call options from $ 0.17 the day before to $ 1.90, an increase of over 1000 %.

[13] The appellant claims that on the trading day following the publication of the article, the price of BCE shares fell 3.3 % and the market price of BCE call options fell precipitously.

In McEachern v Commonwealth, 667 SE 2d 343 (Va Ct App, 2008), the appellant claimed that the evidence failed to prove he intended to permanently deprive the victim of her vehicle.

The Appellant claims she was an employee and that, under the circumstances, termination of her employment amounts to a constructive dismissal, without notice.

The Appellant claimed that the position under domestic law was discriminatory and in breach of EU law (Directive 79/7 on Equal Treatment in Social Security).

The second was an action against Maroun and Cobra Hanna («Hanna») in relation to which the appellant claimed that the lawyers failed to take proper steps to enforce a payment agreement relating to a prior judgment against Hanna and failed to advise the appellant of the requirement to make full and frank disclosure when applying for a Mareva injunction, leading to the appellant having to accept an improvident settlement.

The appellant claimed the loss of her husband's job had caused their homelessness.

The appellant claimed it did not receive the emailed order, which is why it failed timely to file an appeal.

Not exact matches

«Requiring the banks to pay treble damages to every plaintiff who ended up on the wrong side of an independent Libor ‐ denominated derivative swap would, if appellants» allegations were proved at trial, not only bankrupt 16 of the world's most important financial institutions, but also vastly extend the potential scope of antitrust liability in myriad markets where derivative instruments have proliferated,» the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York said in the ruling.A U.S. appeals court on Monday revived private antitrust litigation accusing major banks of conspiring to manipulate the Libor benchmark interest rate, in a big setback for their defense against investors» claims of market - rigging.

'' For me, I strongly hold the view that there is no dispute on the relevant / essential facts grating the claims of the appellants which relate to the determination of the action of the 1st respondent in setting up a caretaker committee of the PDP, Anambra State chapter during the pendency of the judgment / order of the Federal High Court, recognizing the appellants as the persons duly elected to that position.

As it stands, it is clear that the court below premised its decision on this issue on a wrong appreciation of the claim of the appellants before the trial Federal High Court.

Dr. Mann has transgressed scientific norms and offended First Amendment principles by bringing a defamation claim against Appellants for their pointed criticism of his scientific methodology.

BACKGROUND: On January 9, 2009, the Respondent Attorney General of British Columbia filed a statement of claim seeking an interlocutory and permanent injunction, as well as a vexatious litigant order under s. 18 of the Supreme Court Act, in relation to the Appellant, Michael Andrews.

Legislation: The appellant is a regulator in Quebec that was pursuing an ethics inquiry against a claims adjuster working for the respondent.

No other evidence supported the claim, but the appellant's counsel attempted to bring the deceased's prior firearms convictions into evidence.

The chambers judge reviewed the Appellant's history with registry and court staff, and concluded that there was ample evidence to support the allegations in the statement of claim.

The Appellant argued that claims for fraudulent preferences are advanced on behalf of all the creditors, not just any individual plaintiff creditor.

The Court considered the claims of the groups of creditors that had assigned their actions to the Appellant, and found that to the extent those claims were personal — alleging misrepresentations to themselves personally, investments they made in reliance on those misrepresentations, and resulting personal loss — the Appellant could not pursue the claims on their behalf.

The Court found that it could be, and that the stay should be lifted to the extent of permitting the Appellant to pursue the fraudulent preference and constructive trust claims.

But whatever one thinks of this general notion, there can be little doubt that district judges will have a considerable personal / professional bias when considering an appellant's claim that the sentence imposed below was unreasonable.

Shortly before the deceased died, the wife of the deceased (called as one of the witnesses) claimed that her deceased husband had informed her on his sick bed that it was the Appellant who attacked him with acid.

[20] I accept that the narrow interpretation of the words «sufficient reason» advocated by the appellant would provide greater certainty to litigants in knowing the consequences of proceeding in Supreme Court where the matter falls within the Small Claims monetary limit.

In all of the circumstances, the plaintiff / appellant exercised appropriate diligence in discovering the contamination claim.

On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the appellants argued that the motion judge had erred in several ways, namely by concluding that a broader claim was necessarily advantageous, and in turn assuming that the Rochon Group were better prepared and resourced.

After the Respondent's refusal of its offer, the Appellant nevertheless paid the two weeks» notice as required by the employment contract and did not interfere with his right to claim employment insurance.

However the respondent's claim against the appellant is not derived from the clients» claims, and is rather an independent cause of action.

In this case, the finding against the appellant's credibility pervades the judge's rejection of his claim for greater damages.

In Monture v. Director, MOE (Monture 1), [v] a Six Nations appellant tried to use the same issues plus aboriginal rights and claims to block the Summerhaven wind project REA.

On August 12, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted rehearing en banc to appellants in In re Aqua Products, Inc to consider the procedures used by the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to limit the ability of patent owners to amend claims during AIA post-grant proceedings.

As framed by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, there were three issues presented on the appeal: (1) whether the appellant, as a former employee of Pitney Bowes, was entitled to coverage under the Manulife Policy; (2) whether the appellant submitted a timely proof of claim; and (3) whether the one - year contractual limitation period in the policy barred the appellant's claim.

[33] It is arguably unclear whether the policy language required the appellant to commence his action within one year of November 1, 2010, the date that Manulife denied the claim, or whether the one - year period runs from September 9, 2010, the actual date the proof of claim was submitted.

[35] The respondent argues that the appellant knew he had a claim while he was still employed at Pitney Bowes and ought to have brought his claim much earlier.

The representative of the appellant argues that the judgment of the original court which acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Japanese court in an action of the appellee who is a Japanese national claiming divorce in the present case against the appellant who has a nationality of the German Democratic Republic is against the law.

[16] The language of the policy upon which the respondent relies to deny the appellant's claim is found at p. 9 of the policy:

The appellant filed his proof of claim on September 9, 2010 and his claim was denied by the respondent on November 1, 2010.

In allowing the appeal only on the claim of misfeasance in public office, the court said: «It follows that Trillium should be entitled to proceed based on the allegations that the Government's actions were specifically meant to injure the appellant.

Most important of all, however, was the fact that subsequent events in Iraq had altered so fundamentally since the decision to allow the appellant's claim was taken by the adjudicator.

If in this case, the appellants had, either in their notice or in the bills or otherwise, made clear that the amount claimed was only part of their claim to costs and that they would be claiming later in respect of the work of RJH; and the agreement was that the respondents would pay a sum in respect of the costs claimed, recognising that the costs in respect of RJH were still to be dealt with, the appellants would not be prevented from making a claim in respect of those costs.

The claim had been compromised on behalf of both appellants; the appellants and their representatives had to stand by the consequences.

The first and primary assumption was that refusal of the appellant's claim would involve his return to Baghdad, with an obvious risk of imprisonment and torture since the appellant was known to be someone politically opposed to the Iraqi state.

Although the facts before the tribunals below were no longer determinative of the appellant's claim, the secretary of state declined to argue that the appeal raised issues of academic interest only.

In the present case, not only were socio - economic factors not at the forefront of the decision - making process, but the attempt to justify retention of the procedure was characterised by general claims, unsupported by concrete evidence and disassociated from the particular circumstances of the appellant's case.

In this case, the appellant, Mr. Trignani, was pursuing sole custody of his child, which the court determined to be a bona fide claim.

Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago Limited (Appellant) v Ryan and another (Respondents)(Trinidad and Tobago)[2017] UKPC 30 Junior counsel representing the company on appeal to the Privy Council to set aside the Court of Appeal's decision to reverse the trial judge's dismissal of a claim concerning the escape of hydrocarbon fumes from an oil well causing medical complaints.

The appellants ICBC claimed that the order potentially leaves open a «business» claim that is derivative to physical injury.

In 2013 the appellant applied to vary the order, claiming that there had been a material change in circumstances due to the respondent beginning to cohabite with her partner and the disparity in the parties» income having decreased since the order.

While an insurance contract can be said to contemplate potential accidents, any claim for underinsured, uninsured or unidentified coverage «only arises in the aftermath of the tort and its application is conditional on the outcome of the appellant's claim against the tortfeasors,» the decision notes.

On August 12, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted rehearing en banc to appellants in In re Aqua Products, Inc to consider the procedures used by the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to limit the ability of patent owners to amend claims during...

Faced with the conflicting claim, the bear charged the appellant.