Sentences with phrase «after plaintiffs and defendants»

In the U.S., the defendants in the Vioxx proceedings paid out US$ 4.85 - billion to settle the claims of some 45,000 individuals after plaintiffs and defendants each won five of 10 cases tried individually.

Not exact matches

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-...]

The plaintiffs, however, denied the assertion that the relocation of 2nd and 3rd defendants from the USA to Ghana was for them to look after their son and further denied that their son was physically challenged, for him to be taken care of.

The Bayelsa State governor wanted an order of interim injunction restraining the first defendant, whether by itself, servant, agents, privies or howsoever called from accepting from the second and third defendants any fresh submission of names of governorship aspirant from Bayelsa State, to change / substitute the name of the plaintiff which had already been submitted to the first defendant after the primary election of January 2011, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the court adjourned the case after consultation with counsels of the plaintiff and the defendant.

«This is a class action arising out of Defendants» failure to perform the material terms of an offer made to Plaintiff and other consumers comprising the class for a Starwood Preferred Guest («SPG»)- branded American Express credit card; namely, the promise of 35,000 hotel loyalty points, called SPG Starpoints, in exchange for $ 5,000.00 in qualifying purchases made to the card during the first six months after issuance,» Heilman said in the filing.

Evidence revealed from profile searches has been used to prove that a defendant had no remorse after committing a crime, to prove a defendant's motive, as evidence of the crime itself or of an individual's participation in a crime, and to show the extent of plaintiffs» injuries after an accident.

Although the defendant maintained that she only texted at a stop light, another motorist said she saw the defendant continue to text after the light turned green and that the defendant almost hit the witness» vehicle before she hit the plaintiff's vehicle.

After all, having a juror who's preoccupied with other matters or who's so eager to finish a case that he won't seriously deliberate can prove damaging to both plaintiffs and defendants alike.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries after she slipped and fell aboard the defendant's ship.

However, eight of those reasons were circumstances that arose after the commencement of the action and were thus irrelevant to the analysis (the defendant's offer to settle; the defendant's failure to apply to move the action to the Small Claims Court; the defendant's denial of liability for the plaintiff's injury; the insurer's characterization of the collision as low impact; the exchange of 60 documents; the defendant's motion for a Rule 66 hearing and eventual removal; a Rule 28 examination of a witness; and the absence of expert evidence tendered by the defendant).

Eight months after they had begun dating, and five months after they first became sexually intimate, defendant revealed to the plaintiff that he had had a vasectomy four years earlier, and was surprised by her angry response.

Therefore, the Defendant's offer to settle of $ 40,000 exceeded the Plaintiff's damages recovery after reductions for collateral benefits and taking into consideration the statutory deductible ($ 22,136.60).

Plaintiff parents sued social hosts and social companions for negligence, alleging they were responsible for injuries sustained by plaintiffs» son Robert when, after drinking at defendant's home, he jumped from a fence and was rendered a quadriplegic.

After receiving the defendants» productions, the plaintiffs» allegedly discovered that their signatures were forged on a number of leasing documents, and commenced a fresh action claiming damages arising from the alleged fraud.

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.

The tapes and transcripts thereof were not provided by the plaintiff to defendants» counsel until just before the witness appeared to testify, some seven days after the trial commenced.

After years of litigation and finally a mediation, the defendants, for their reasons, decided to settle and the plaintiffs agreed to settle.»

The case settled shortly after Judge Richard Schell ruled that the jurors would have to find «actual malice» on the part of the defendants, Cisco and Frenkel, for plaintiff Eric Albritton to obtain punitive damages in the case.

The plaintiff received $ 1,000 in compensatory damages and $ 15,000 in punitive damages after he received a direct mailing from the defendant that appeared to indicate that he had won a Cash Prize of $ 833,337.00.

The judge ruled specifically that the defendant was not on actual notice of the accident until over eight months after the accident and that the plaintiff failed to meet the necessary burden of showing how the district would not be «substantially prejudiced» by allowing the plaintiff's case to proceed against the defendants.

Nearly three years after the accident, the plaintiffs attempted to serve the defendant with a personal injury and premises liability lawsuit that alleged the defendant was in control of the park's maintenance and allowed a dangerous hazard to be created on the pathway without cordoning off the area or otherwise giving an appropriate warning.

After hearing compelling testimony from Defendants» expert in accident reconstruction and the investigating police officer, the jury found that Plaintiff's own contributory negligence was a cause of the accident, resulting in a defense verdict.

After inspecting the mediation brief of the defendant, the Court noted that the defendant assessed the plaintiff's claims in substantial detail and explained why it believed that the plaintiff's evidence was weak; this constitutes meaningful participation.

The defendants led evidence that the plaintiff knew of her injury; that it was serious enough to require surgery; that she could not walk for some two months thereafter; that she still had pain and restrictions in her movement six months after the fall and had not been able to return to work by then.

Given the significant injury to the plaintiff, which was caused by the defendant's foolish and reckless behaviour, and the effect on the award of a further reduction for costs, even if not doubled, and taking into account all of the above considerations, in my view it would not be fair or just to require the plaintiff to pay ICBC's costs after the date of the offer.

After suffering an injury in 2008 on premises controlled by the Border Services Agency, a plaintiff brought an action against Border Services and an additional defendant who had control over conditions at the accident location.

In two cases representing plaintiffs alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and breaches of confidentiality agreements, obtained settlements after the start of trial in which defendants agreed to cease certain business operations.

It expressly cited Cronic and rejected the defendants» argument that plaintiffs should bring individual Strickland claims after conviction.

After the jury returned the verdict for the defendant in Johnson v. McCullough, the plaintiff's lawyer searched a litigation database and found a non-responsive juror had been a defendant in multiple debt collection cases and a personal injury case.

The court took into account factors such as the degree of specificity of the request and the importance of the documents to the litigation, weighed each country's privacy interest in the sought - after documents, each defendant's hardship in complying with plaintiffs» requests and whether the defendant acted in good faith.

After September 1, 2011, the defendants and plaintiffs in these situations can not recover costs and attorney's fees that total more than a plaintiff's jury verdict.

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.

After the boy's death, the plaintiffs filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the manufacturer, alleging that the doorbell cover was a dangerous product that failed to work as intended and that it was negligently manufactured and marketed by the defendant.

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.

The Court of Appeal set aside the dismissal where the plaintiff continued to move the action along, participated in examinations for discovery before and after the action was dismissed, and actions taken by the defendants» counsel did not support actual prejudice or reliance on finality.

The state supreme court determined that by litigating several issues both before and after the decedent's passing, the defendant had given up their right to enforce an arbitration agreement signed by the plaintiff when her mother moved into the nursing home.

After hearing argument on the plaintiff's motion, the trial court ruled that the proposed defendants could not be added and denied the plaintiff's request to conduct additional discovery on the defendants.

As a monopoly insurer ICBC often has one adjuster assigned to look after a person's claim for no - fault benefits and at the same time look after the defendant's interests in the Plaintiff's tort claim.

ICBC»S lawyer argued that the Plaintiff should be entitled to costs only up the point that the Defendant's formal offer was made, and that the Defendant should be entitled to costs after the point that the Defendant's formal offer was made, or alternatively, that the Plaintiff be awarded costs up to the point of the Defendant's formal offer, with each party bearing their own costs after that point in time.

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.

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.

After waiving the preliminary hearing and obtaining discovery, the Plaintiff decided to terminate Defendant - Lawyer and new counsel was appointed.

After more than two years of protracted and contentious litigation, Justice David Schmidt granted the defendants» motion for summary judgment finding that the plaintiff was unable to support her allegations with any evidence.

If the Plaintiff were to be found highly credible (presumably after in - court cross-examination), his evidence might «trump» the Defendants» evidence; 2) the Defendants required better evidence on a key issue: whether or not the Plaintiff had attended at a particular appointment; and 3) there was no evidence regarding what the damages might be.

In X. v. Y. and Z. Ltd., the Plaintiff was seriously injured on his motorcycle after colliding with the Defendant's vehicle.

The district court denied the request, ruling that by participating in court proceedings surrounding the plaintiff's claim both before and after her death, the defendant waived their right to compel arbitration.

After 3 hours of deliberation, the jury found that the defendant was negligent and awarded the plaintiff economic damages totaling $ 298,577.67 and $ 900,000 in non-economic damages.

While lawsuits may be filed after the statute of limitations has expired, the defendant may raise the expired statute of limitations as a defense and the court will dismiss the case without any financial relief for the plaintiff.

For example, if a defendant served a Rule 49 Offer to Settle of $ 40,000 plus costs prior to trial, and the plaintiff was awarded $ 50,000 in damages, the defendant would, after application of the $ 30,000 deductible, only be required to pay $ 20,000 in damages.