Sentences with phrase «against the defendant on»

It said it believed there was not sufficient evidence to proceed to trial against the defendant on that count.

Prosecutors are expected to wrap up their case against the defendants on Tuesday morning, taking Monday off to prepare for closing remarks.

But Justice Nyako struck out six out of the 11 count amended charge filed against the defendants on grounds that the charges lack competence.

«Based on additional investigation, the government believes that there is not a sufficient factual basis to proceed to trial against the defendant on the count, and therefore will move at sentencing to dismiss,» U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said in court papers.

Despite this high burden, Judge Combs - Greene ruled against the defendants on their motion to dismiss.

59 The answer to the first question and the first part of the third question is therefore that European Union law must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the issue of judgment by default against a defendant on whom, given that it is impossible to locate him, the document instituting proceedings has been served by public notice under national law, provided that the court seised of the matter has first satisfied itself that all investigations required by the principles of diligence and good faith have been undertaken to trace the defendant.

The claimant commenced proceedings against the defendant on 31 July 2013, having obtained an anonymity order the day before.

The claimant claimed damages against the defendant on the grounds that but for the brain damage caused in the accident and the resulting personality change, he would not have committed the rapes.

Tuck v. Supreme Holdings Ltd. et al. 2014 NLTD (G) 131 Evidence — Limitation of Actions — Practice Summary: The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendants on February 28, 2012, to recover damages allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle collision that occurred... [more]

This appeal considered whether the claimants have a direct mistake - based action in unjust enrichment against the defendant on the basis that the defendant was enriched at the claimant's expense by the mistaken payment of VAT, and whether the claimants» cause of action against HMRC in unjust enrichment for the recovery of VAT was excluded by the Value Added Tax Act 1994, s 80 (7).

The main consequence of any judgment (favourable or unfavourable) is that each class member will be bound by the judgment and can not advance an individual claim against the defendants on the same subject matter.

Not exact matches

The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 18 - cv - 02213, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired BRF American Depositary Receipts («ADRs») between April 4, 2013 and March 2, 2018, both dates inclusive (the «Class Period»), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants» violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the «Exchange Act») and Rule 10b - 5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the District of Illinois, Eastern Division, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Akorn's securities between March 1, 2017 through February 26, 2018, both dates inclusive (the «Class Period»), seeking to recover damages caused by defendants» violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b - 5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

On April 11, 2018, Patrick K. McDonnell — a defendant in the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's case against CabbageTech, Corp (DBA Coin Drop Markets)-- submitted a letter to Judge Roanne L. Mann of the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

On March 6, 2018, Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered a preliminary injunction order against defendants Patrick K. McDonnell and CabbageTech Corp, also known as Coin Drop Markets (CDM).

NEW YORK — What do you do if you're one of the most criticized defendants in the nation awaiting a jury verdict on the criminal fraud and conspiracy charges filed against you?

On March 6, 2018, Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled that virtual currencies are commodities under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and therefore subject to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) anti-fraud and anti-manipulation enforcement authority.1 Granting the CFTC's request for a preliminary injunction against the defendants who allegedly engaged in deception and fraud involving virtual currency spot markets, Judge Weinstein noted that «[u] ntil Congress clarifies the matter,» the CFTC has «concurrent authority» along with other state and federal administrative agencies and civil and criminal courts over transactions in virtual currency.2

Not only did defendant adopt the name and imitate the bottles and cartons in use by plaintiff, but at the very beginning, when he started the manufacture and sale of his sauce in competition with the long established business of plaintiff, he printed on his bottle labels a caution to use «only the genuine Evangeline,» thus apparently seeking to create the impression that such «Evangeline» Tabasco Sauce was an old and established brand, against spurious imitations of which the public should be warned.

However, Justice Kolawole, later ruled that the defendants should continue on the earlier bail terms adding a sum of N50million against each defendant.

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara announces corruption charges against two former aides to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and seven other defendants at a Manhattan news conference on Thursday, Sept. 22, 2016.

At the last sitting (June 14), there were arguments and counter arguments between Jibrin's counsel, Y. C. Maikyau, SAN and counsel to the EFCC, Faruk Abdallah, on whether the documents tendered by the latter against the defendant is admissible or not.

The Federal Government had on April 30 filled the new 32 amended count charges to replace the initial 18 count charges brought against 5 defendants in 2015 before the same court.

On hold for nearly nine months, the trial of two Buffalo police officers accused of using excessive force against four teenagers is moving forward and may reveal for the first time what was said in a secret hallway conversation between the defendants.

Although the EFCC in two separate letters to the Federal Government through the Secretary to the Government of the Federation had in 2015 and 2016 cleared Umar of any wrongdoing in the alleged N10 million bribery allegation made against him by a defendant, Rasheed Taiwo Owolabi standing trial before him on false asset declaration.

«It is my decision that this court has jurisdiction on the charges filed against the first defendant in this case and the notice of preliminary objection is dismissed,» Justice Solebo ruled.

«I am passionately urging my lord to dismiss this application and call on the defendant to explain the allegations that we have proved against him.

He said the trial court had become functus - officio to grant such request to the defendant who he said had yet to appeal previous rulings that were delivered against him on the same subject matter.

In his statement of claim, Mr Mahama said the false comment by Mr Bempah on UTV, has done damage to his reputation as a businessman, and, thus, praying the court to award damages of GHS2 million against the two defendants.

The court held that the Plaintiff has made more than sufficient references to the specific allegations, the dates and times were made plus the specific radio / media platforms on which the allegations were made by Defendants against the Plaintiff.

The defendant in the suit revealed that the «the Applicant was deported from Ghana on the said morning of 1st June 2017 without any notice to him or being offered the opportunity to be heard on the allegation of forgery leveled against him.»

Other reliefs Mr. Awuah - Darko is seeking includes a perpetual restraining order on the defendants from uttering and publishing any defamatory words against him and also the payment of the cost of his lawyer's fees.

All the defendants had on December 15, 2015, pleaded not guilty to the charge against them.

The summons states, «Beginning on November 1, 2017, Defendants knowingly and / or recklessly published or caused to be published false, misleading statements against Plaintiff Michelle J. Schoeneman, a candidate for the Erie County Legislature for the 10th Legislative District.

Oliverio said the judge has not yet ruled on the request by several defendants, including Ciminelli, to move the case against three former LPCiminellli executives, along with Kaloyeros and two Syracuse developers, to a courtroom in Buffalo.

ALBANY — Federal prosecutors in the corruption case against state Senator Dean Skelos and his son, Adam, on Thursday filed a 164 - page letter detailing the application for a wiretap against the two defendants.

The first Defendant (Badeh) pleaded not guilty to the charges preferred against him, while the court relied on Section 478 of the Criminal Justice Act to enter a «not guilty» plea for the second defendant which is a corDefendant (Badeh) pleaded not guilty to the charges preferred against him, while the court relied on Section 478 of the Criminal Justice Act to enter a «not guilty» plea for the second defendant which is a cordefendant which is a corporation.

«The defendant's motion relies on distortions and omissions, disregards the law and is a transparent attempt to distract this Court and the public from the serious charges brought against the defendant.

Todd Howe, center, exits court on Monday after his first day of testimony as a government witness in the corruption case against Joseph Percoco and three other defendants.

The anti-graft agency filed a 17 - count charge bordering on unlawful retention, unlawful use and unlawful payment of money to the tune of N4.9 billion against the defendants.

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.

Section V.D prohibits Settling Defendants from retaliating against an e-book retailer based on the retailer's e-book prices.

The lawsuit brings eight counts against the defendants by Adkins and on behalf of all consumers who purchased the chicken jerky dog treats.

A class action on behalf of customers was instituted against 72 defendants.

Taylor is the decision on a defendant's unsuccessful motion to dismiss an action against it on the basis there was no genuine issue requiring trial.

This judgment followed on from the well - known decision of Mr Justice Birss in Unwired Planet v Huawei where he determined that the English High Court had jurisdiction to determine portfolio FRAND on a global basis and could grant a so called FRAND injunction against a defendant if it chose not to enter into the licence on the terms determined by the Court.

As Zal notes, the plaintiffs in the fraud lawsuit against Bluford — which continues against other defendants even though Bluford settled — filed a request on Feb. 21, 2017, to dismiss QuickLegal as a defendant.

(2) Exceptionally, a plaintiff may succeed by showing that the defendant's conduct materially contributed to risk of the plaintiff's injury, where (a) the plaintiff has established that her loss would not have occurred «but for» the negligence of two or more tortfeasors, each possibly in fact responsible for the loss; and (b) the plaintiff, through no fault of her own, is unable to show that any one of the possible tortfeasors in fact was the necessary or «but for» cause of her injury, because each can point to one another as the possible «but for» cause of the injury, defeating a finding of causation on a balance of probabilities against anyone.

As for the suggestion that the judge should have held a competency hearing, how could a judge conduct a meaningful «competency» hearing against a defendant when the judge was the incompetent party, i.e., «altogether uninformed» and «egregious lack of knowledge» on the issue of self - representation rights as admonished by the court of appeals.

There are some situations wherein the language could prohibit any and all future claims against other potential defendants — and that may not be a scenario you want, depending on the circumstances.

A solicitor may attend the hearing to offer advice to the bereaved family on what is happening in the criminal process, and to also take a note of the evidence to support any later civil compensation claim against the defendant.