Sentences with phrase «plaintiffs in the case argued»

Plaintiffs in the case argued that their school facilities were severely under - resourced compared to nearby white schools, and experts testified on the negative impact segregation has on children's self - esteem.

The plaintiff in the case argued that if there had been a warning label on the Baby Powder product, warning her of the risk of developing cancer from use of the powder, she would've quit using it long ago.

The plaintiff in the case argued that the court should not adopt a per se rule regarding the age at which a child can be held liable, but it should look at each case individually.

The plaintiffs in this case argued that they had copyright in those documents, and that they were entitled to fees or royalties from the commercial use of these documents by Teranet.

[36] The plaintiffs in this case argued that gas flaring produced air pollution and constant heat, light and noise.

Not exact matches

Microsoft, which is fighting the case in court, strongly denies the allegations and argues there are non-discriminatory reasons that the plaintiffs were not promoted or paid according to their expectations.

David Sanford, chairman of Sanford Heisler Sharp, the law firm that argued the largest - ever employment gender discrimination case to go to trial — a class action suit against Novartis Pharmaceuticals that resulted in a $ 253 million jury award for plaintiffs in 2010, reduced post-trial to $ 175 million — noted that in that case, the company had just three investigators for a workforce of thousands.

Lasher is running against Marisol Alcantara, a former union organizer for the New York State Nurses Association, and Robert Jackson, a former councilman who is also a plaintiff in a landmark case by the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, which argued that New York was under funding schools and not meeting its constitutional burden to provide children with a «sound basic education.»

The plaintiffs in the case — represented by Brooklyn Republican Board of Elections commissioner Ronald Castorina — argued that Cuomo was waiting until the general elections in November to save money, according to Weinstein's ruling.

Thomas Hungar, of the Washington law firm Gibson, Dunn, argued for the plaintiffs that «it is undisputed in this case that human embryonic stem cell research always entails the destruction of embryos.»

The plaintiffs in the case are arguing that the company fraudulently misled them about their services, charging $ 1,000 per year for services that they did not deliver.

A second judge argued that the statute was even unconstitutional as applied to the particular plaintiffs in this case, who included several defendants who wished to publish swinger ads in the magazine illustrated with sexually - explicit pictures but did not want to sacrifice their anonymity.

In the same way that the old segregationist laws of the South forced blacks to the «back of the bus,» the California law amounts to «relegating minorities to the back of the courthouse under the subtle laws of the «New North,»» argued Laurence H. Tribe, a Harvard University constitutional scholar representing the minority - group plaintiffs in the Los Angeles school - desegregation casIn the same way that the old segregationist laws of the South forced blacks to the «back of the bus,» the California law amounts to «relegating minorities to the back of the courthouse under the subtle laws of the «New North,»» argued Laurence H. Tribe, a Harvard University constitutional scholar representing the minority - group plaintiffs in the Los Angeles school - desegregation casin the Los Angeles school - desegregation case.

In this court case, student plaintiffs from the San Francisco Unified School District sued the state, arguing that the state had failed to provide equal access to instructional materials, quality teachers, and safe and decent school facilities.

In a 4 - 3 decision, the state Supreme Court swept aside those concerns, arguing that they should not preclude the plaintiffs from being able to make their case.

The plaintiffs in the case, minority students in California, had argued that California's teacher tenure system violates the equal protection clause because it protects teachers who are ineffective, and poor and minority students are more likely to be assigned these ineffective teachers.

The plaintiffs in the case, Vergara v. California, argued that the tenure system for public school teachers in California verges on the absurd, and that those laws disproportionately harm poor and minority students.

The decision, which was enthusiastically endorsed by Education Secretary Arne Duncan, brings a close to the first chapter of the case, Vergara v. California, in which a group of student plaintiffs backed by a Silicon Valley millionaire argued that state tenure laws had deprived them of a decent education by leaving bad teachers in place.

In the new case, Martinez v. Malloy, the plaintiff attorneys argue that the state laws violate equal protection and due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

The defendants also argue that the plaintiffs failed to prove they are members of a «suspect class,» which basically means plaintiffs didn't prove that school districts harmed a specific group — in this case, minority kids from low - income families — by moving ineffective teachers into schools populated by members of the group.

In the landmark case, Vergara vs. California, nine student - plaintiffs, are arguing that the California teachers» seniority, tenure and dismissal laws violate their fundamental, constitutional right to a quality education.

The lead attorney representing the plaintiffs argued that this rule does not apply in this case because «the exception to this policy is where the officer personally committed a tort: a wrongful act or an infringement of a right (other than under contract) leading to civil legal liability.»

In this case, the plaintiff's lead attorney argued that Smith should be personally liable because his actions were negligent and against the best interests of the corporation.

(On the other hand, while lots of folks blamed poor Stella for the suffering she experienced, it's pretty hard to argue that the plaintiffs in the Children's Trust case created the problem.)

The plaintiffs in the case, which include several environmental groups and four western U.S. municipalities, argue that the federally supported projects — including oil drilling, pipelines, and commercial power plants — contribute to global warming, which in turn affects U.S. economic interests and its citizens.

Other plaintiffs in the case — all of them are between the ages of 7 and 20 — argue that climate change is wreaking havoc on their homes, cultures, economies, and even their diets.

In response, plaintiffs» lawyers argued that bringing the case to the Office of Special Counsel was «utterly unrealistic» and that the Civil Justice Reform Act did not contemplate the unique situation presented by the case.

Dismissing the complaints of tort reformists who argue that inflated jury verdicts in medical - malpractice cases are creating a crisis in the insurance industry, Satin says any plaintiffs» lawyer worth his salt knows that it doesn't pay to take on a bad case hoping for a settlement.

However, Mr. Kraft, the plaintiff in the underlying action, argued that the allegations of liability against Mr. Kelley fell within the policy's scope of coverage because the word «use» in the motorized vehicle exclusion should be construed as meaning «some measure of operational control over» a motorized vehicle, in this case the ATV.

The plaintiff in that case, Danny Weeks, argued that he developed tardive dyskinesia, a movement disorder, after taking generic versions of Reglan for his acid reflux.

Likewise, a plaintiff in an automobile accident case could try to increase the settlement value of his case by arguing to the insurance company that case's venue, a major urban City, is historically favorable to plaintiffs.

For instance, in many premises liability cases, a property owner will argue that the plaintiff is partly responsible for the accident and their resulting injuries.

At trial, the plaintiff sought pay in lieu of common law «reasonable notice» and argued that his written contract was unenforceable for two reasons: the contract allowed for termination without notice in case of «continuing incapacity considered permanent» (based on legislation that was later amended) and allowed for termination on only 15 days» notice even though his service at the time entitled him to much more than 15 days» notice under the ESA.

In response to such claims, we have in some cases successfully argued that the plaintiff's action never had a chance of success, or that the plaintiff failed to prove that the lawyer did not meet the required standard of carIn response to such claims, we have in some cases successfully argued that the plaintiff's action never had a chance of success, or that the plaintiff failed to prove that the lawyer did not meet the required standard of carin some cases successfully argued that the plaintiff's action never had a chance of success, or that the plaintiff failed to prove that the lawyer did not meet the required standard of care.

Liability was in issue in the case, with the Plaintiff arguing that he was clearly there to be seen, and ICBC»S lawyer arguing that the Defendant was there for the Plaintiff to be seen, and that the Plaintiff had left his place of safety i.e. the walkway, before walking into the path of the Defendant.

Now, as our Delray Beach personal injury lawyers know, while people can be held responsible for personal injuries that took place on their property even if they had little or nothing to do with actually causing the injury, the plaintiff's attorneys in this case successfully argued that the restaurant operator actually had a hand in causing the tragic death.

In the Ontario Court of Appeal case of Dimopoulos v Mustafa, 2016 ONSC 4119, the plaintiff argued that the defendant insurer had not meaningfully participated in the mediation and sought an Order imposing a cost penalty on the insureIn the Ontario Court of Appeal case of Dimopoulos v Mustafa, 2016 ONSC 4119, the plaintiff argued that the defendant insurer had not meaningfully participated in the mediation and sought an Order imposing a cost penalty on the insurein the mediation and sought an Order imposing a cost penalty on the insurer.

Meanwhile, the team at the Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog strongly objects to employer arbitration agreements, arguing that arbitration clauses inconvenience plaintiffs and deprive them of important rights to have their cases heard in court.

«Oppose» is a broad word that could arguably have encompassed the plaintiff's actions in this case, the dissent argued.

In a high - exposure personal injury case where Plaintiff asserted that one of the nation's largest residential builders was liable for the defective design of an intersection in the City of Los Angeles, WSHB's senior counsel, Katie J. Brinson, and associate, Diana E. Sfrijan, successfully obtained a dismissal on summary judgment, arguing that the builder did not control the intersection and was not responsible for its desigIn a high - exposure personal injury case where Plaintiff asserted that one of the nation's largest residential builders was liable for the defective design of an intersection in the City of Los Angeles, WSHB's senior counsel, Katie J. Brinson, and associate, Diana E. Sfrijan, successfully obtained a dismissal on summary judgment, arguing that the builder did not control the intersection and was not responsible for its desigin the City of Los Angeles, WSHB's senior counsel, Katie J. Brinson, and associate, Diana E. Sfrijan, successfully obtained a dismissal on summary judgment, arguing that the builder did not control the intersection and was not responsible for its design.

That was the part where, after the parties agreed to, say, a $ 25 million settlement and submitted it for court approval, the plaintiffs» law firm (which to date had shown nothing but 100 percent confidence in its case) must now turn around and argue against its own case to show the judge that it had not settled the case for too little.

[13] Nevertheless, the CN Defendants argue that even if the proposed line of questioning did not require notice pursuant to the provisions of Rule 40A, notice was still required because of the case management order made in respect of this trial on February 6, 2009, which provided, among other things, that the plaintiff's reply or rebuttal reports were to be delivered by January 29, 2009.

Successfully arguing against such defenses typically requires a plaintiff to conduct a complete investigation in order to be ready with a compelling factual analysis of the case that explores all of the relevant factual and legal issues at hand.

Notable mandates: Represented physicians involved in providing care to Ashley Smith during the 2013 coroner's inquest; acted for Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne in a defamation action against Ontario Progressive Conservative party leader Tim Hudak and energy critic Lisa MacLeod; in Wise v. Iran, acted for a Canadian victim of a suicide bombing (executed by individuals who received material support from Iran) who sought leave to intervene in ongoing proceedings commenced by United States plaintiffs in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice seeking orders recognizing the enforceability in Ontario of judgments they obtained from a U.S. court against Iran totaling about $ 370 million; in Khadr v. Edmonton Institution, acted as lead counsel for an intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, to argue that in interpreting Omar Khadr's sentence for the purpose of enforcing it in Canada, Correctional Services Canada was obliged to consider Khadr's right to liberty and principles of fundamental justice; acted for a physician in a malpractice claim in Moore v. Getahun, a precedent - setting case about restrictions on communication between counsel and experts in preparation of expert reports.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff should have brought its case in Small Claims Court, or under the Simplified Procedure, and should not be... [more]

In the case at bar, ICBC»S lawyer argued that the Plaintiff's award must be reduced to the extent that the second crash aggravated the injuries from the first accident.

In today's case (Cambie Surgeries Corporation v. British Columbia) the Plaintiffs, who are suing the government of BC arguing certain Provincial health - care laws are unconstitutional, sought to introduce articles and texts cited by their expert witnesses into evidence.

[25] The defendants argue that the reliability of the plaintiff's evidence, given the potential memory loss from drug use, is at issue in this case.

In response to her request to bring the case to trial, the insurance company argued that the plaintiff had not presented any evidence of causation, and moved for summary dismissal of the suit.

Mr. Pierson is running the case for Cohen Milstein and in 2015 took the lead for the direct purchaser plaintiffs in arguing against the defendants» summary judgment motions (which were denied by the Court for four of the five defendants).