Sentences with phrase «acted against the plaintiffs»

While the lawyer should not have acted against the plaintiffs, nothing he did affected the validity of the mortgages.

Not exact matches

«Because the proclamation is unlawful as applied to plaintiffs, and inflicts grave and irreversible harms on them, plaintiffs seek a declaration that the proclamation violates the Trade Act and the NAFTA Implementation Act and an injunction prohibiting its enforcements against plaintiffs,» they wrote in their more than 600 - page complaint.

On the threats of a legal action against the EC, O. B Amoah held the view that, the plaintiffs may hit a snag because the EC appears to have acted within the ambit of the law as it clearly spelled out the criteria for the candidates.

A number of witnesses were to testify in favor of a marriage equality plank in the platform: Marc Solomon, national campaign director for Freedom to Marry; Allison Herwitt, legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign; Army Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan, a lesbian New Hampshire guardsman with stage - four incurable breast cancer and a plaintiff in Servicemembers Legal Defense Network's lawsuit against the Defense of Marriage Act; Michael Macleod - Ball, the American Civil Liberties Union's chief of staff for the Washington Legislative Office; and Aaron Zellhoefer, a gay delegate to the Democratic National Convention representing the National Stonewall Democrats.

However, on 10th July, the Commission received an order given by the Federal High Court, Abuja and dated 6th July, 2017, directing the «parties to maintain the status quo till the determination of the Plaintiff's motion on notice, in respect of the suit filed by the concerned senator, seeking orders of injunction against the Commission to stop it from acting on the petition by the Kogi West Senatorial District Registered Voters.

But on the same 10th July, the Commission received an order given by the Federal High Court, Abuja and dated 6th July, directing the «parties to maintain the status quo till the determination of the plaintiff's motion on notice» in respect of the suit filed by the concerned senator, seeking orders of injunction against the Commission to stop it from acting on the petition by the registered voters of Kogi West Senatorial District.

Philosopher Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University, another key witness for the Dover plaintiffs in 2005, testified against the Louisiana education act.

Such behavior is said to be in violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, and the plaintiff is seeking an injunction against the company.

Appeal from judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Mark D. Fox, Magistrate Judge), which held that defendant Board of Education of the Newburgh Enlarged City School District intentionally discriminated against plaintiff Santina Polera in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and awarded damages to plaintiff.

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.

The judge also said the plaintiffs must specifically describe the circumstances of the various fraudulent acts and omissions alleged against the defendants.

OK, but I wasn't exactly suggesting that civilization act as plaintiff in a civil lawsuit against the perps.

Hansen helped connect Olson with another child plaintiff previously, when Olson was looking to find children who would act as plaintiffs in a lawsuit against government agencies.

Accordingly, I am unable to agree with the plaintiff's contention that the defendant's conduct in the mediation was contrary to the requirements of s. 258.6 of the Insurance Act, such that it ought to attract punitive cost sanctions against the defendant.

627.730 - 627.7405, or against any person or organization legally responsible for her or his acts or omissions, a plaintiff may recover damages in tort for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and inconvenience because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation, or use of such motor vehicle only in the event that the injury or disease consists in whole or in part of: (a) Significant and permanent loss of an important bodily function.

Acted for Laroe Estates before the US Supreme Court in a dispute over when intervenors as of right must independently demonstrate Article III standing, following Laroe's attempt to intervene in a suit brought by an individual plaintiff against the Town of Chester.

Obtained judgment for plaintiff on Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims against HVAC company for misrepresentations concerning company's goods and services

The insurer denied coverage to Mr. Hoang, and the plaintiffs were forced to bring an action for coverage, under section 258 (1) of the Insurance Act directly against the defendant insurer to have the insurance money payable under Mr. Hoang's motor vehicle policy applied toward satisfaction of the judgment.

Albers v. Woolworth Canada Inc., 1999 CarswellAlta 856 Acting for the plaintiff in this action for damages for personal injury sustained in a fall on the sidewalk adjacent to the defendants» property, I was successful in having an application for summary judgment against the plaintiff dismissed.

Justin Anisman acted as counsel for the successful plaintiffs and their subrogating insurer against a negligent welder.

Sarosh Zaiwalla, senior partner at Zaiwalla & Co, who is acting for the bank, says it will be the first time an Iranian plaintiff against sanctions in Europe has reached the stage of claiming damages, and that Western governments are starting to ease sanctions against Iran following an interim deal reached in Geneva in November.

In 2002, he became the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against Metropolitan asserting that the unsolicited faxes violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Many of its files will be familiar to regular readers of the national media, and include the $ 9 - billion Sino - Forest Corp. shareholder class action claim; an application against Rogers Communications Inc. and Chatr Wireless Inc. involving a constitutional challenge to the Competition Act; and a case concerning oil pollution in the Amazon in which the firm acted for Ecuadoran plaintiffs.

The judgment is among the largest ever issued against a foreign nation under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, according to a press release by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, which represented the plaintiffs with co-counsel Karsman McKenzie & Hart.

The plaintiffs filed a personal injury lawsuit against the company, claiming that it was responsible for the driver's actions because he was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.

The Plaintiff, a private high school, brought the action against the corporate developer of a college - entrance exam, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and an analogous state statute related to unsolicited faxes it received.

Notable mandates: Represent the plaintiffs in a proposed class action against provincial law enforcement agencies regarding allegedly negligent use of breathalyzer machines; acts for hundreds of pre-sale contract holders with various condominium developments who are disputing their requirement to close under consumer protection laws; defended a law firm in a four - week hearing over enforcement of a significant contingency fee agreement; acted for a number of clients in online defamation cases

In my view such pursuits are part and parcel of the Plaintiff's obligations in an action against the tortfeasor by reason of the releases available to the tortfeasor under the Insurance Act and only in any compelling circumstances should the unsuccessful tortfeasor escape responsibility to indemnify the Plaintiff for the costs of such pursuits...

The plaintiff filed an in rem against the ship, claiming that it had a maritime lien under s. 139 of the Marine Liability Act which ranked ahead of the mortgagee of the ship.

In this groundbreaking case, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court correctly dismissed a legal malpractice suit against the attorney and his law firm because the underlying product liability claim plaintiffs» asserted should have been pursued was statutorily preempted under the federal Medical Device Act («MDA»).

penalizes the defendant for engaging in public participation «plaintiff» means a person who initiates or maintains a proceeding against a defendant; «proceeding» means any action, suit, matter, cause, counterclaim, appeal, or originating application that is brought in the Supreme Court or the Provincial Court, but does not include a prosecution for an offence or a crime; «public interest» means the whole of the subject matter invites public attention, or a matter in which the public has some substantial concern because it affects the welfare of citizens, or one to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached; «public participation» means communication or conduct aimed at influencing public opinion, or promoting further lawful action by the public or any government body, in relation to an issue of public interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pagainst a defendant; «proceeding» means any action, suit, matter, cause, counterclaim, appeal, or originating application that is brought in the Supreme Court or the Provincial Court, but does not include a prosecution for an offence or a crime; «public interest» means the whole of the subject matter invites public attention, or a matter in which the public has some substantial concern because it affects the welfare of citizens, or one to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached; «public participation» means communication or conduct aimed at influencing public opinion, or promoting further lawful action by the public or any government body, in relation to an issue of public interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pAgainst Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pagainst whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper purpose.

Michael Cernovich just blogged a decision by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding (part of) a district court's decision in Carhart v. Gonzales, in which the plaintiffs sought an injunction against the enforcement of the so - called Partial - Birth Abortion Act of 2003.

Fees will amount to $ 1.9 million including an $ 804,000 premium to lawyers acting on behalf of plaintiffs in a class action against General Motors Canada over cuts to employee benefits

Won summary judgment dismissing a Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act suit filed against a Texas - based, public accounting and advisory services company in which the plaintiff alleged our client was the wrongful recipient of over $ 1.8 million worth of client information and company goodwill.

While it is true that the Allstate suit contains fraud allegations, Exclusion F only bars coverage for fraudulent acts if a final judgment or adjudication is entered against Plaintiffs.

1999)(mere adultery, though persistent, can not rise to level of intentional infliction of emotional distress); Weicker v. Weicker, 22 N.Y. 2d 8, 290 N.Y.S. 2d 732 (1968)(strong policy reasons weighed against applying intentional infliction of emotional distress to dispute arising out of matrimonial differences); Wilson v. Still, 819 P. 2d 714 (Okla. 1991)(act of woman stealing plaintiff's husband was not sufficiently outrageous); Rosenthal v. Erven, 172 Or.

After years - long discovery in a defense of a False Claims Act action brought against a large healthcare company, including personally taking and defending more than twenty depositions of fact and expert witnesses, successfully excluded testimony of plaintiff / relator's experts and obtained complete summary judgment on all False Claims Act claims.

In the Judicial Review decision, the Court made a number of strong findings against the Faculty, including that it had acted in a biased and «grossly unfair» manner toward the plaintiff.

She was also instrumental in obtaining dismissal, after an evidentiary hearing, of a plaintiff's $ 40 million claim against a hospital client for damages under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

In 2008, another federal court harshly dismissed his claims for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act against two other creditors, noting that Flury had «filed eleven lawsuits against various defendants over the last four years, and with the exception of one case that ended in a default judgment, plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed every action once the defendant moved to dismiss the case or otherwise responded to the complaint.»

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.

But it doesn't have to involving kicking or punching as long as the act was done against the will of the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs do not seek to interrupt the progress of improvements, but they ask to stay revolution; a revolution against the foundations on which property rests; a revolution which is attempted on the allegation of monopoly: we resist the clamor against legislative acts which have vested rights in individuals, on principles of equal justice to the state, and to those who hold those rights under the provisions of the law.

Plaintiff also asserted a G.L. c. 93A § 9 Consumer Protection Act claim and a negligent failure to obtain informed consent action against his physician.

Represented plaintiff in federal court action against competitor for false advertising and Lanham Act violations; obtained favorable settlement for client

120 (1) If a defendant makes a payment to a plaintiff who is or alleges to be entitled to recover from the defendant, the payment constitutes, to the extent of the payment, a release by the plaintiff or the plaintiff's personal representative of any claim that the plaintiff or the plaintiff's personal representative or any person claiming through or under the plaintiff or by virtue of Part V of the Family Law Act may have against the defendant.

The trial judge had found that, instead of telling the plaintiff what was expected of him and giving him a reasonable opportunity to respond to the criticisms against him, the responsible Xerox manager became «more authoritarian, impatient and intolerant» and «subsequently acted impulsively and without justification.»

Specifically, in Rafferty v. Merck & Co., Inc., [4] the SJC held that plaintiffs who ingest the generic form of a drug may bring failure to warn claims against the brand - name manufacturer of the drug if the brand - name defendant acted recklessly by «intentionally fail [ing] to update the label on its drug while knowing or having reason to know of an unreasonable risk of death or grave bodily injury associated with its use.»

He also acted as lead counsel for the General Service Small / General Service Medium customer class in a multi-week hearing before the Manitoba Public Utilities Board for the first Cost of Service Review of Manitoba hydro in over 10 years, and is acting for acting for SNC - Lavalin as a plaintiff in a multimillion - dollar coverage claim as against its insurer with respect to an E&O claim regarding a major infrastructure project in Manitoba.

The plaintiffs challenged eight restrictions on judicial conduct: 1) the prohibition on judicial candidates campaigning as a member of a political organization, 2) the prohibition on judicial candidates making speeches for or against political organizations or candidates, 3) the ban on judicial candidates making contributions to political causes or candidates, 4) the prohibition on judicial candidates from publicly endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, 5) the prohibition on judges from acting as a leader or holding office in a policitical organization, 6) the prohibition on judicial candidates knowingly or recklessly making false statements during campaigns, 7) the ban on judicial candidates making misleading statements, and 8) the prohibition on candidates making pledges, promises, or committments in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court.