Sentences with phrase «plaintiff and defendant on»

FACTS This matter arises out of a motor vehicle accident between Plaintiff and Defendant on March 28, 2011.

Jurors listened to concluding statements made by both plaintiffs and defendants on Tuesday, June 14, marking the final stage of the two - month - long manslaughter trial on the deaths of two firefighters in a 2007 blaze at the former Deutsche Bank tower at 130 Liberty St.. The summations came after final testimonies made on Mon., June 7, -LSB-...]

With over decades of experience, litigating for both plaintiffs and defendants on a wide - variety of civil matters, our attorneys are well versed in the idiosyncrasies of the law from all perspectives.

He also represents employers and employees on a range of employment law matters, including employment and non-competition agreements, drafting employee handbooks, counseling plaintiffs and defendants on discrimination claims, and advising employers on compliance with the complex body of state and federal laws governing the modern workplace.

He has acted for both plaintiffs and defendants on many claims related to broadcast and internet libel.

Not exact matches

Both the plaintiff and the defendant have a good opportunity here to prevail and they're both going to put on their best evidence to do so.»

If both sides, through their eyes and their people's eyes, have concluded that the plaintiff is absolutely going to win this case, and the plaintiff is going to get a lot of money because they're totally on board with everything that has been presented, then that might be a good reason for the defendant to agree to a settlement with the plaintiff for less money than the potential exposure if the jury comes back and finds willful infringement.

Plaintiff Christopher M. Sulyma, on behalf of two proposed classes of participants in the Intel 401 (k) Savings Plan and the Intel Retirement Contribution Plan, claims that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by investing a significant portion of the plans» assets in risky and high - cost hedge fund and private equity investments.

On May 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint alleging that, during that same period, all of the defendants violated Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule

The lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on November 4, 2014 and, on December 15, 2014, defendants filed their opposition to the motion.

On May 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint alleging that, during that same period, all of the defendants violated Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b - 5 (b) by concealing material information and making false statements related to Parent's acquisition of Autonomy and that certain defendants violated SEC Rule 10b - 5 (a) and (c) by engaging in a «scheme» to defraud investors.

Not only was the printed matter on the McIlhenny bottle and carton copied, but defendant adopted a bottle and carton of the same size and shape and strikingly similar to that of plaintiff.

Where defendant, manufacturer of a sauce similar to plaintiff's, copied the printed matter on plaintiff's bottle and carton and adopted a bottle and carton of the same size and shape as plaintiff's, he was guilty of unfair competition, although certain differences between the bottles could be discovered when the two were placed side by side.

Not only did defendant adopt the name and imitate the bottles and cartons in use by plaintiff, but at the very beginning, when he started the manufacture and sale of his sauce in competition with the long established business of plaintiff, he printed on his bottle labels a caution to use «only the genuine Evangeline,» thus apparently seeking to create the impression that such «Evangeline» Tabasco Sauce was an old and established brand, against spurious imitations of which the public should be warned.

The plaintiff is seeking: A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of the provisions of the 1992 Constitution, particularly Articles 88 (5), 218 (a) and (e), 284 and 287 thereof, the 1st defendant can not act as the legal representative for Honourable Kenneth Nana Yaw Ofori Atta, the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Ghana, in a pending investigation bordering on conflict of interest and abuse of office before the 2nd Defendant; A further declaration that the purported response filed by the 1st Defendant on behalf of the said Honorable Kenneth Nana Yaw Ofori Atta in respect of the petition concerning conflict of interest and abuse of office before the 2nd Defendant is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whdefendant can not act as the legal representative for Honourable Kenneth Nana Yaw Ofori Atta, the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Ghana, in a pending investigation bordering on conflict of interest and abuse of office before the 2nd Defendant; A further declaration that the purported response filed by the 1st Defendant on behalf of the said Honorable Kenneth Nana Yaw Ofori Atta in respect of the petition concerning conflict of interest and abuse of office before the 2nd Defendant is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whDefendant; A further declaration that the purported response filed by the 1st Defendant on behalf of the said Honorable Kenneth Nana Yaw Ofori Atta in respect of the petition concerning conflict of interest and abuse of office before the 2nd Defendant is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whDefendant on behalf of the said Honorable Kenneth Nana Yaw Ofori Atta in respect of the petition concerning conflict of interest and abuse of office before the 2nd Defendant is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whDefendant is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever;

A declaration that defendant (Asamoah Gyan) on the 13th day of February, 2015 did have natural and unnatural sex with plaintiff (Sarah Kwablah) without her consent.

Plaintiff states that on Thursday September 8, 2016, she participated in an Inter-Party Advisory Committee, IPAC, meeting called by the 1st Defendant together with other registered political parties in Ghana during which the parties were informed by the 1st Defendant that the filing fees for Presidential and Parliamentary Elections would be GHC50, 000.00 and GHC10, 000.00 respectively.

A copy of the suit said: «This honourable court will be moved by Gary Nimako Marfo ESQ., counsel for and on behalf of plaintiff / applicants herein praying for an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain defendants / respondents, whether by themselves, agents, servants, workmen, hirelings, privies or any person claiming under or through them or howsoever described, from holding out the second defendant / respondent, [as] the parliamentary candidate - elect for Klottey Korle constituency.»

AN ORDER OF MANDAMUS is made directing and or compelling the Defendants / Respondents to provide the Plaintiff / Applicant with up to date information on recovered stolen funds since the return of civilian rule in 1999, including:

An order that the contents of relief (i) above be subject to the prior approval of plaintiff, and for defendants to personally and separately read out same on all media networks mentioned in paragraphs 7 and 15 above and doing so within 14 days from the day of judgment.

A copy of the suit, which is available to ClassFMonline.com said: «This honourable court will be moved by Gary Nimako Marfo ESQ., counsel for and on behalf of plaintiff / applicants herein praying for an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain defendants / respondents, whether by themselves, agents, servants, workmen, hirelings, privies or any person claiming under or through them or howsoever described, from holding out the second defendant / respondent, [as] the parliamentary candidate - elect for Klottey Korle constituency.»

The plaintiffs are also seeking «damages, including aggravated damages for libel contained in the defendants» publications indorsed on the writ of summons by way of an attachment and particularized in paragraphs 5 and 6 above» and «cost, including lawyer's fees».

Asiedu Nketia, the 2nd Defendant, said «No» and that they needed cash so the Plaintiff decided to issue two cheque payment vouchers on 7th December, 2015 for GH cents 2,000,000.00 and the other one on the same 7th December, 2015 for GH cents 2,199,340.00 and the said vouchers, according to the 2nd Defendant, were received by Gyanu Edgar, an employee of the Electoral Commission.»

(ii) an order that the content of relief (i) above be subject to the prior approval of plaintiff and for defendants to personally and separately read out same on all media networks mentioned in paragraphs 12 above and doing so within 14 days from the day of judgement

The court held that the Plaintiff has made more than sufficient references to the specific allegations, the dates and times were made plus the specific radio / media platforms on which the allegations were made by Defendants against the Plaintiff.

They prayed the court for «an order nullifying the conduct of the congresses of the Ogun State chapter of the 1st defendant (PDP) held on October 27, 2017, October 28, 2017, and November 4, 2017, electing and or constituting another Executive Committee of the 1st defendant in Ogun State when the tenure of the plaintiffs have not expired.

By article 46, the first defendant is endowed with independence in the performance of its functions including the initiation, regulation and conduct of elections in the country... In our opinion and as part of our function to declare what the law is, the above words which are unambiguous insulate the Electoral Commission from any external direction and or control in the performance of the functions conferred on it under article 45... A fair consideration of the functions of the first defendant reveals that the demand which was made on it by the plaintiffs regarding the presence of ineligible and deceased persons and the latter's refusal to acquiesce in the said demands which provoked the action herein relates to its mandate under article 45 (a) «to compile the register of voters and revise it at such periods as may be determined by law».

The summons states, «Beginning on November 1, 2017, Defendants knowingly and / or recklessly published or caused to be published false, misleading statements against Plaintiff Michelle J. Schoeneman, a candidate for the Erie County Legislature for the 10th Legislative District.

«Scared, helpless and knowing that her job (only source of income) was on the line, Plaintiff Cater endured Defendant Hoyt's behavior despite being on the brink of a nervous breakdown,» the papers state.

He is also seeking an order «that the contents of the relief (i) above be subject to the prior approval of plaintiff, and for defendants to personally and separately read out same on all media networks mentioned in paragraph 12 above, and doing so within 14 days from the Day of Judgment.»

«An order of the court compelling the first defendant to write a letter personally addressed to the plaintiff admitting his comments were untrue and unfortunate and given his tacit commitment never again to spew such falsehood and scandalous defamatory remarks on the person of the plaintiff.

In a suit filed Wednesday night, the plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the law is unconstitutional and an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the provisions by the attorney's general's office and the Joint Commission on Public Ethics, which are the defendants in the case.

As is so often the case, the defendant showed another female employee a photograph of his penis and commented on its size, and he repeatedly pursued a few of them outside of the workplace, the plaintiffs say.

As I also testified, one of my goals (and I believe this to also be a goal of the plaintiffs» writ large) is to (a) get the state of New Mexico to release the data to an external evaluator to evaluate the models» functionality (this person certainly does not have to be me) or (2) release the data to the «expert witnesses» on both the plaintiffs» side (i.e., me) and the defendants» side (i.e., Thomas Kane of Harvard), so that we can both examine these data independently, and then come back to the court with our findings and overall assessments regarding the model's overall strengths and weakness, as per the actual data.

All of us involved in the case — recall that Jesse Rothstein and I served as the expert witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs, and Thomas Kane of the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Project and John Friedman of the infamous Chetty et al. studies (see here and here) served as the expert witnesses on behalf of the defendants — knew that all of the plaintiffs» claims would be tough to win given all of the constitutional legal standards would be difficult for plaintiffs to satisfy (e.g., that evaluating teachers using their value - added scores was not «unreasonable» was difficult to prove, as it was in the Tennessee case we also fought and was then dismissed on similar grounds (see here)-RRB-.

Whereas, Plaintiff, the United States of America filed its Complaint on April 11, 2012, alleging that Defendants conspired to raise retail prices of E-books in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1, and Plaintiff and Settling Defendants, by their respective attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law;

Pursuant to Section 2 (b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act («APPA» or «Tunney Act»), 15 U.S.C. 16 (b)- (h), Plaintiff United States of America («United States») files this Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed Final Judgment against Defendants Hachette Book Group, Inc. («Hachette»), HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. («HarperCollins»), and Simon & Schuster, Inc. («Simon & Schuster»; collectively with Hachette and HarperCollins, «Settling Defendants»), submitted on April 11, 2012, for entry in this antitrust proceeding.

As with an ordinary lawsuit, an adversary proceeding begins when a plaintiff serves a summons and complain on a defendant.

Plaintiff / debtor listed a disputed debt to defendant Sallie Mae, Inc. on Schedule F with account number -LSB--RSB- in the amount of $ 29,774.00, and another loan with account number -LSB--RSB-(believed to be the same account, under an abbreviated number).

«ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the student loan debt owed by the Plaintiff, -LSB--RSB-, to the Defendant, U.S. Department of Education, is hereby DISCHARGED in bankruptcy and the amount due on the subject student loan, Account Number XXX - XX - 1913 is zero.&raqAND ADJUDGED that the student loan debt owed by the Plaintiff, -LSB--RSB-, to the Defendant, U.S. Department of Education, is hereby DISCHARGED in bankruptcy and the amount due on the subject student loan, Account Number XXX - XX - 1913 is zero.&raqand the amount due on the subject student loan, Account Number XXX - XX - 1913 is zero.»

She asserts that prior to trial one of the defendants came to the Plaintiff's place of employment (a banking facility with video surveillance) as well as on separate occasions approached and intimidated her all in violation of a restraining order.

Plaintiffs thereupon brought this action claiming inter alia that defendants» exercise of the «due - on» clause in these circumstances constituted an unreasonable restraint on alienation within the meaning of Civil Code section 711, and that as a result they were damaged in the amount of the difference between what the Nolls owed them under the installment land contract and what they in turn owed Lassen on the original loan.

Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Microsoft Corporation, Electronic Arts Inc., Harmonix Music Systems, Inc., Majesco Entertainment Co., Ubisoft Inc., and Nintendo of America Inc.'s (collectively «Defendants») on Plaintiff Richard J. Baker's («Baker») claims for infringement pursuant to the Court's ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS» MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (D.I. 135) dated January 3, 2017 and filed on JanuarDefendants Microsoft Corporation, Electronic Arts Inc., Harmonix Music Systems, Inc., Majesco Entertainment Co., Ubisoft Inc., and Nintendo of America Inc.'s (collectively «Defendants») on Plaintiff Richard J. Baker's («Baker») claims for infringement pursuant to the Court's ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS» MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (D.I. 135) dated January 3, 2017 and filed on JanuarDefendants») on Plaintiff Richard J. Baker's («Baker») claims for infringement pursuant to the Court's ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS» MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (D.I. 135) dated January 3, 2017 and filed on JanuarDEFENDANTS» MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (D.I. 135) dated January 3, 2017 and filed on January 4, 2017.

«Crytek has not been compensated for Defendants» unlicensed use of Crytek technology in the Squadron 42 game, and has been substantially harmed by being deprived of that compensation, which would ordinarily include a substantial up - front payment as well as a substantial royalty on game sales,» plaintiffs argue.

Both the plaintiffs and the defendant were requesting that the high court rule on the subject of amateurism.

The format was straightforward — two hours each for the plaintiffs and the defendants, and the judge had provided us with a series of questions on the essential physics that he wanted addressed, as well as requesting a timeline of how our understanding of climate change has evolved over the past 150 years.

Plaintiff Oceana, Inc. («Oceana») on behalf of its adversely affected members hereby challenges the unlawful decision of the National Marine Fisheries Service («Fisheries Service» or «Defendants») to adopt and promulgate Amendment 5b to the Highly Migratory Species («HMS») Fishery Management Plan because it failed to establish measures necessary to end overfishing and rebuild the dusky shark population to a healthy level as mandated by the Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act («Magnuson - Stevens Act»).

Nevertheless, on page 20 of his Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants National Review and Mark Steyn's Motion to Dismiss, Mann and his Big Tobacco lawyer falsely cite the House of Commons report in Paragraph Two of Section C, titled «Dr Mann is Exonerated»:

He did, however, do so on page 20 of his Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants National Review and Mark Steyn's Motion to Dismiss.

The Defendants (the Calgary Herald) state that the Plaintiff (Ball) never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming.