Sentences with phrase «favor of plaintiff after»

State Supreme Court Holds in Favor of Plaintiff after Finding Defendant Withheld Information During Pre-Trial Discovery

In the case, Riley v. Ford Motor Company, the court determined that the trial judge properly adjusted the damages award in favor of the plaintiff after the jury returned a shockingly inadequate amount.

Not exact matches

After an in - depth trial that lasted several, Administrative Law Judge Robert E. Meale ruled in favor of Plaintiff Surfrider Foundation and denied the town of Palm Beach a Joint Coastal Permit for the REACH 8 beach fill project because of the potential to harm environmental and recreational resources.

After deliberation, the jury returned a general verdict in the defendant's favor, finding that the defendant was not liable for any of the plaintiff's injuries.

After a trial lasting for five days, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

The Eighth Circuit United States Court of Appeals recently released an opinion affirming a jury verdict in favor of a defendant after a trial was held on the plaintiffs» allegations surrounding the death of their 23 - month - old son.

After phase I the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $ 200,000.

After a jury returned a verdict in favor of the doctor in a medical malpractice case, an estate executor appealed on two questions of abuse of discretion: limitations on the scope of questions during the defendant's deposition, and refusal of jury instructions tendered by the plaintiff.

After giving defendants a glimmer of hope that Canadian class action law would become less plaintiff - friendly, Canadian courts have more recently returned to their longstanding approach favoring class actions.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, No. 15 - 1406 (SCOTUS April 18, 2017), clarified the standard to be used by district judges in imposing «inherent power of the court to control judicial process» sanctions as far as setting an appropriate amount of sanctions, reversing a $ 2.7 million sanctions award in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Goodyear after a case was settled.

Several days after the court's ruling, a federal jury ruled in favor of a different plaintiff on a failure to warn claim.

A Dutch court classifies Bitcoin as a «transferable value», after it ruled in favor of a plaintiff who was owed 0.591 Bitcoins (BTC).

¶ 1 After purchasing a home in Enid, Oklahoma, Plaintiff Jason Stauff (Buyer) filed an action alleging violations of Oklahoma's Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act (Disclosure Act) and negligence against the sellers, real estate broker, and home inspectors.1 Buyer appeals a single trial court order granting 1) summary judgment in favor of Defendants Kimberly Bartnick and her husband, Roy Bartnick (collectively the Bartnicks or Sellers) and also 2) the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to 12 O.S. 2011 2012 (B)(6) filed by Defendant Paramount Homes Real Estate Co. (Broker or Paramount).