Sentences with phrase «against the defendant fails»

Not exact matches

Azrack said the cases were different for three reasons: The de Blasio case involved only «campaign contributions» and not personal gifts, a fact that would increase the government's burden of proof for bribery; the defendants failed to demonstrate they are «similarly situated» to de Blasio; and, critically, the de Blasio matter was already reviewed by a different set of federal prosecutors, who declined to move forward with a case against him.

A writ filed by Endurance Oti Boateng against Noble Dream Microfinance and one Samuel Tuffuor to lay claim to the property was dismissed by the court after the defendant failed to show up in court.

Lawyers for Charlotte Osei also demanded the list of workers who were behind the petition «to enable us commence legal action against them for the defamatory statements contained in their petition failing which our client will be constrained to proceed against you alone as defendant in the suit our client intends to commence against them since you are to all intents and purposes, their agent.»

For failing to retract the offending statements and tender public apology within the stipulated period, Fayemi's counsel is asking the court for reliefs compelling the defendants to pay damages for the statements against him which had portrayed him as a «very corrupt public office holder and fraudulent person who siphoned public funds at the detriment of Ekiti citizens while serving as governor».

She said this was «to enable us commence legal action against them for the defamatory statements contained in their petition failing which our client will be constrained to proceed against you alone as defendant in the suit our client intends to commence against them since you are to all intents and purposes, their agent.»

Also, «for those defendants previously convicted and who have failed to satisfy the financial obligations imposed at sentencing, we will consider federal civil forfeiture actions against their pensions to satisfy criminal judgments,» the prosecutor said.

However, the counsel to the claimant F.A Ademu had filed a motion for default judgement against the defendant having failed to file their statement of defense within 30 days as provided in the state high court (civil procedure) rule 2006.

Plaintiffs argue the sheer volume of three hundred total investment choices for retirement investors indicates that defendants failed properly to monitor and evaluate the historical performance and expense of each of these funds, compare that historical performance and expense to a peer group of funds and / or even compare the three segments against one another.

Mann â $ «who had twice successfully defeated anti-SLAPP motions filed by the defendants â $ «then filed his own anti-SLAPP motion against Steyn's counterclaim, alleging that it failed to state a claim for abuse of process or malicious prosecution.

More specifically, the Court found that the defendants failed to properly investigate the allegations made against the plaintiff, and published them knowing them to be false.

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.

Notable examples include acting for accountants in long - running litigation arising out of a failed tax avoidance scheme; acting for the developer and manufacturer of an offshore drilling system following an accident in operation; representing one of the Defendants in Novoship v Mikhaylyuk & Others, concerning allegations of bribery and secret profits; appearing in a substantial LCIA arbitration about the theft of oil stocks in East Africa;, successfully representing a broker in litigation against a former client under a futures brokerage contract in Sucden v Fluxo - Cane [2010] 2 CLC 216; and The «Ekha» [2011] 1 All ER Comm 1077, long - running litigation in the Commercial Court and Court of Appeal about an offshore drilling contract.

Reasons included (1) judges «grade on a curve» and, after sitting through 20 cases involving violent crimes, might not find a more minor crime as serious whereas a jury would not share this context; (2) defendants will select those judges who they believe will be more inclined to acquit; (3) judges are bound by fixed sentencing rules so rather than sentence a defendant of a nonserious crime to a lengthy term they avoid that dilemma through acquittal; (4) judges might better understand the complex elements of certain corporate crimes and, unlike a jury, would recognize when the prosecution failed to carry its burden and (5) some judges may just have something against prosecutors.

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.

The arbitrator granted summary disposition in favor of the defendants, finding that: (1) CHSI was not a proper respondent to the action and that Weirton failed to state claims against CHSI; (2) all of Weirton's claims, except for the breach - of - contract claim against Quorum, were barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel; (3) Weirton's breach - of - contract claim against Quorum was time - barred under the applicable Tennessee statute of limitations; (4) Weirton's tort claims were alternatively barred by the gist - of - the - action doctrine; and (5) Weirton's unjust enrichment claim was barred because of the parties» contracts (the «Second Award»).

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.»

Plaintiff «brownfield developer» who alleges claims arising from a business deal to bid for, buy and redevelop a brownfield site from WMATA, may only pursue fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims against a single defendant who allegedly failed to...

The court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment that individual defendant was liable for the default judgment awarded plaintiff against corporate defendant because plaintiff failed to pierce the corporate veil.

What happened below was that a trial judge erroneously failed to honor plaintiff's dismissal of an action, striking it and then going forward to award discovery sanctions and attorney's fees against plaintiff and in favor of the defendant.

Following the Defendant failing to comply with the order for sale, obtaining vacant possession of the property and further orders for costs against the Defendant as a result of his failure to comply.

Following one week trial, obtained defense judgment finding that business plaintiff failed to prove causation of any damages in misappropriation of trade secrets case where default judgment had been entered against defendants when represented by predecessor counsel.

Unifund Assurance Co. v. D.E. et al. 2015 ONCA 423 Insurance Summary: The applicants were defendants in a lawsuit against them for negligence for failing to control their daughter.

The plaintiff and her husband filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendants, arguing that the defendants knew about Rocks» propensity to be aggressive but failed to restrain him accordingly.

The Sixth Circuit also noted that the defendant failed to address whether the district court might reexamine the class certification decision, and noted that both parties had filed dispositive motions, which weighed against interlocutory review.

A common area of dispute in civil cases is how far a claimant, who has to incur legal costs against a third party as a result of a wrong committed by the defendant and fails to recover those costs in full from the third party, can then recover them as damages from the defendant.

In May 2006, a summons was issued against the defendant, alleging that he had knowingly failed to comply with conditions imposed upon him, contrary to s 134 (7)(a).

Less than a week after moving in, the plaintiffs noticed water in the basement and brought a claim against the defendants for failing to disclose the defect.

Schuckman Realty v. Marine Midland Bank (244 A.D. 2d 400)- broker not entitled to recover a commission from defendant under contract theory where broker entered into brokerage agreements with parties other than the defendant; broker's claim against defendant in quantum meruit fails due to the existence of a valid and enforceable agreement governing the particular subject matter (i.e., commission agreement between broker and other parties).

Venezia v. Coldwell Banker Sammis Realty (270 A.D. 2d 480)- buyer's action against seller for fraud for failing to disclose toxic contamination of untapped ground water beneath the property and surrounding area dismissed; cause of action against brokers severed; buyer's claim of fraud against seller was extinguished upon closing as a result of specific merger clause in contract of sale; moreover, buyer's failed to allege that seller made any representation about the condition of the land's subsurface or groundwater and did not allege that seller engaged in concealment or otherwise deceitful conduct designed to prevent the discovery of such contamination; seller is under no duty to speak; salesperson of one of the defendant real estate agencies represented to buyer that the house was in good condition