Sentences with phrase «after plaintiff»

The funding is for the MLS's continued defense of that case; it comes on top of money NAR had previously put into the case and after another plaintiff filed suit and sought to bring the suit as a class action.

After the plaintiff prepares all the necessary forms, the he or she files the divorce papers with the Office of the Clerk of Court in his or her district.

A party seeking a no - fault divorce in Connecticut must meet a residency requirement by indicating which of the following applies when filing the divorce complaint: 1) the Plaintiff (the spouse filing the divorce complaint) or the Defendant (the non-filing spouse) has lived in Connecticut for at least the twelve months immediately prior to the filing of the divorce complaint or before the divorce becomes final; 2) the Plaintiff or the Defendant lived in Connecticut at the time of the marriage, moved away, and then returned to Connecticut, planning to live there permanently; and / or 3) the marriage broke down after the Plaintiff or the Defendant moved to Connecticut.

The Appeals court found that it wasn't until after the plaintiff filed her initial complaint, and during the course of discovery, that the plaintiff discovered the hospital had a «Termination of Cervical Spine Immobilization» policy, which stated that only doctors were to remove cervical spine collars.

If all issues concerning divorce, child support, equitable division of assets, alimony, visitation and other issues are resolved between the parties, the earliest possible date for a nominal divorce (a nominal divorce is a non-contested divorce in which everything is agreed to) is approximately sixty five days after the plaintiff files a complaint for divorce.

Medical surveillance — the cost of monitoring plaintiff's medical condition after the plaintiff was exposed to a hazardous substance, so that any illness or injury might be detected early.

After the plaintiff is done presenting evidence, the defendant may present evidence.

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, awarding a Plaintiff full trial costs after the Plaintiff failed to beat an ICBC settlement offer by a «marginal difference ``.

The problem was that the question was presented the day after the plaintiff's expert witness testified, when the witness had already returned to another state.

A similarly restrictive approach was taken in a civil case that began after the plaintiff was injured while performing unpaid work.

All of that went away on appeal, in a 3 - 0 decision (but with a concurring decision by Presiding Justice Turner) after plaintiff appealed both the tax costs order and the sanctions order.

Under this section, a party has three years from the date of injury or «one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury, whichever occurs first.»

one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury, whichever occurs first.»

The plaintiff's name and picture appeared in a widely distributed company flyer after the plaintiff was dismissed.

They remained romantically involved after the plaintiff moved away to attend university.

After the plaintiff filed the claim, the insurance company sent the plaintiff a list of questions.

After the plaintiff and his family had ordered their drinks and used the restroom, they began to exit the store.

After the plaintiff set the action down for trial, the plaintiff brought a motion requesting leave of the court to bring a summary judgment motion with respect to liability and contributory negligence, while leaving the issue of damages for trial.

After the plaintiff's mother gave birth to her child, he was diagnosed with serious birth defects and disabilities, including cerebral palsy, developmental delays, microcephaly, and ventricular asymmetry, among other conditions.

Reasons for judgement were published this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for profound injuries after a plaintiff fell two stories after falling while swinging from a corroded lamp - post.

Taking over a Clayton Act Anti-Trust case from a large law firm who recommended my client pay $ 200,000 in damages evolving from «Unfair Competition», and getting a directed verdict after the Plaintiff failed to make his case, and then collecting $ 80,000 from the Plaintiff in settlement of the Defendant's Counter Claim.

The judge calls the defendant to present their side of the case after the plaintiff's case is finished.

Limitations Act, 2002 ran from the day after the plaintiff requested ayment from the insurer under the OPCF 44R endorsement.

In some instances, the defense may make an acceptable settlement offer shortly after a plaintiff's slip and fall deposition if things go badly for the defendant.

She is now precluded from instituting any new action of any nature or court proceeding of any nature in any court in Ontario, including small claims court, and she is precluded from bringing any further or fresh step in any existing action without the consent of a Superior Court judge, which consent will only be granted after the plaintiff makes an application for it, and provides proof that she has paid $ 40,000 of the more than $ 50,000 in cost orders that have been made against her to date.

Approximately 90 minutes after the plaintiff's arrival, and after his hand weakness and tingling had worsened, the moonlighting defendant, with the second defendant standing by and watching, lifted the plaintiff off the stretcher to a seated position in order to examine the patient's cervical range of motion.

The second plaintiff's mother had threatened to sue the Housing Authority if it did not repair chipping paint after the plaintiff was allegedly seen putting chipped paint when she was three years old.

Two days after the plaintiff had reported lack of fetal movement to the midwifery service, she went to the hospital with further complaints of decreased fetal movement.

Shortly after the plaintiff's arrival, the first physician removed the cervical collar and refused to order x-rays to rule out cervical spine injuries.

The insurer brought a motion for summary judgment after the plaintiff proceeded with the action in response to the insurer's decision to terminate accident benefits and would seek repayment of benefits paid pursuant to s. 47 (1).

The action was commenced more than two years after the plaintiff discovered or ought reasonably to have discovered her claims.

In Pennsylvania and New Jersey, an injured party can only file a medical malpractice claim within two years after a plaintiff discovers that:

The placement of a mat under the chair at the sit down wicket at some point after the plaintiff fell was not an admission of liability and I do not find it a persuasive factor.

A summary judgment application was brought by Google in Trkulja v Google Inc & Anor (No 2)[2010] VSC 490 --(28 October 2010) after the plaintiff's fourth amendment to the pleadings, but the summary judgment was abandoned and the proceedings focused again on the sufficiency of the pleadings.

Furthermore, the claim was statute barred, having been brought more than two years after the plaintiff had knowledge of the facts giving rise to the claim.

Her OB - GYN tested her for two specific gene mutations after the plaintiff notified her physician of a family history of cancer.

Three months after the plaintiff's injury, the water company fixed the asphalt around the valve cover.

The action initially claimed $ 1.25 million in damages in 2003, but the parties agreed to reduce that amount to $ 750,000 ahead of the trial, and the final settlement was just $ 375,000 after the plaintiff was found 50 - per - cent responsible for the crash.

After the plaintiff struggled for more than one minute to answer defense counsel's question, the following exchange between the attorneys took place:

After the plaintiff rests, it's the defendant's turn to present his case.

After the plaintiff has given her testimony, her attorney may choose to call an expert witness or a police officer who responded to the accident scene.

Settlement reached after plaintiff verdict on liability.

A jury found defendant insurance broker liable to plaintiff art gallery owner for damages resulting from an insurance carrier's denial of a dealer fine art policy claim after plaintiff sued insurer and incurred fees in pursuing insurance coverage.

After the plaintiff's attorney rests its case, the defendant's attorney can then present his or her case.

The new trial court stated: «The only scenario likely to cause further delay of concern to Plaintiff is the possibility that the Court of Appeals will not rule on the jurisdictional issue or on the merits, but will dismiss the appeal as moot, concluding that the trial court should not have denied the motions to dismiss the first complaint after the Plaintiff had filed his amended complaint.»

The 24 - page lawsuit was filed after the plaintiff claimed his dog, a 4 - year old Cocker Spaniel / Poodle mix, experienced kidney disease and ultimately kidney failure as a result of ingesting the Blue Buffalo dog food products as his primary source of food.

A New York federal judge granted Jay Z $ 8,000 in attorneys» fees in a lawsuit filed by an artist who claims to have helped create the logo for Roc - A-Fella Records, after the plaintiff and his attorney were sanctioned in December for failing to produce discoverable evidence.

Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Limitation — Vote Passed (218 - 210, 6 Not Voting) The House passed a bill that would limit to $ 250,000 the non-economic damages that can be awarded in a medical malpractice lawsuit in which the plaintiff's health care was paid for in whole or in part via a federal program, subsidy or tax benefit, and would establish a statute of limitations for initiating such lawsuits of either three years following the plaintiff's injury, or one year after the plaintiff discovers such injury, whichever occurs first.

A district court has granted a plaintiff's motion to remand a lawsuit back to a state court after the plaintiff, who was seeking a waiver of ineligibility from the Kentucky High School Athletics Association, withdrew his allegation that his rights under the United States Constitution were violated.

In that opinion, the first to address fee - shifting provisions following ATP, the Delaware Court of Chancery found that a fee - shifting bylaw was inapplicable to a share - holder plaintiff and the class where the bylaw was adopted after a plaintiff had been forcibly cashed out through a reverse stock split.