Sentences with phrase «against the defendants because»

Such costs are often awarded, but Myers instead awarded costs against the defendant because the defendant had not provided information and documents, as he had been directed to do by the court, in a timely manner.

Ultimately, the judge held that poker is a game of skill, but he ruled against the defendants because he found that they still ran a gambling house.

Not exact matches

An early investor files a new case against the social network saying, «The defendants were unjustly enriched because they realized enormous profits and financial benefits from the IPO.»

I share the view expressed by objective and reasonable members of the public that because the government was the 1st defendant / respondent against whom the Supreme Court made declarations of unconstitutional conduct in paying the judgment debt to Alfred Agbesi Woyome, the government has been pretending for purely political reasons at each turn to take steps to enforce the judgment and orders of the court only to deliberately abort them.

This aspect of the legislation is considered particularly controversial, because of concerns about how fair a trail is when the defendant doesn't know who is speaking against him.

The Attorney General's (AG) Department discontinued its case against Alfred Woyome, in the GHc51 million judgment debt saga because it was considering a possible settlement with the defendant, President John Mahama has said.

Well, suffice it to say that individuals and groups associated with the defendants are sounding off through the comment process, and they are making very strong claims to the general effect that DOJ's efforts to protect consumers against ebook price - fixing are misguided, because the DOJ should instead be protecting the interests and the distribution infrastructure of the same publishers who colluded with Apple to raise ebook prices by 30 to 100 percent back in 2010.

(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.

A defendant in an existing case may file a third - party claim against someone other than the plaintiff because the outcome of the case between the plaintiff and the defendant will affect the rights or responsibilities of that third party.

Nevertheless, the arguments are frequently crunched through, probably because of an important Illinois Supreme Court ruling from 1990 which is still good law, Rollins v. Ellwood, involving claims brought against a Baltimore police officer, among others, sounding in intentional tort for his role in the apprehension of a misidentified criminal defendant and Illinois resident in Illinois, for which the Court found the officer was not subject to Illinois jurisdiction.

Defense counsel must also learn how to draft by committee because they sometimes enter into joint - defense arrangements to defend litigation against multiple defendants.

Yet a defendant threatened with punishment for injuring a nonparty victim has no opportunity to defend against the charge, by showing, for example in a case such as this, that the other victim was not entitled to damages because he or she knew that smoking was dangerous or did not rely upon the defendant's statements to the contrary.

Moreover, why should a captive defendant be forced to pay top dollar simply because it had the misfortune of winding up against a large firm with unlimited resources?

It was submitted on behalf of the defendants that Mr Imerman could not assert a claim of breach of confidence against Mrs Imerman because they were husband and wife at the time the server was accessed and therefore no right of confidence existed between them («there is no such duty, no such right enforceable against the other»).

Justice Stinson refused to allow Sunnybrook Hospital University of Toronto Clinic to be added as a defendant, because the claim against it was statute barred.

On the record thus described, it is argued, somewhat faintly, that the acts charged against the defendants were not unlawful because within the protection of that freedom

Because a successful deferred adjudication is not a conviction, in most cases it can not be used against the defendant in the future to enhance punishment.

«This is because there is a lot of easy profit to be made on mesiothelioma cases by lawyers: there are so many defendants, and so many cases, that attorneys and defendants find it cheaper to settle for nuisance sums, which add up quickly to an automatic profit for the attorney, even if the case is tried and lost against recalcitrant defendants who dare to expose themselves to lottery litigation.

The action languished for some time, in large part because the plaintiffs» solicitor had difficulty in resolving how to deal with the claim against the second defendant.

If a Claimant unreasonably refuses settlement offers by the Defendant or refuses genuine offers to mediate, because the Claimant wants their day in court, it is likely that the Judge will make adverse costs orders against the Claimant (i.e. financially penalise the Claimant).

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.

Now, a patent owner who wants to assert an infringement claim against multiple defendants may have to file multiple suits across multiple jurisdictions because defendants may not all be subject to venue in the same fora.

If, instead of bringing counterclaims in the original lawsuit, the defendant brings a separate lawsuit against the plaintiff, the plaintiff could seek to either (1) consolidate the cases if they are filed in the same court system (i.e. a federal case and a federal case, or a New York State case and a New York State case), or (2) move to dismiss the new lawsuit because the claims were required to be brought in the original lawsuit as mandatory counterclaims, or (3) move to stay proceedings in the second lawsuit pending resolution of the first lawsuit, or (4) move to dismiss the claims in the second lawsuit on the merits if it is apparent from the face of the countersuit that it does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted or was filed in the wrong court.

For example, criminal defense lawyers routinely push to have clients who are 100 % guilty acquitted because the evidence against the defendant was obtained illegally by the police.

Lawyers frequently advise defendants against apologizing, because apologies can be interpreted as admissions of guilt, which could be leveraged into defendants paying more money in settlement and / or at trial.

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»).

The waiver stated that the doctor does not carry malpractice insurance and that by signing the waiver, the plaintiff agreed not to file a lawsuit against the doctor because the plaintiff understands that the defendant «will do the very best to take care of me according to community medical standards.»

A selection of potential defendants is beneficial because it opens up the opportunity to select a venue with fewer biases against or other inconveniences for your client.

In an injured seaman's suit against the owner of a commercial fishing vessel, a Gloucester County Circuit Court excludes plaintiff's expert because defendant had no duty under maritime law to perform a «job hazard analysis» on vessel - to - vessel ingress and egress,...

Megan Shortreed acted for the successful «non-media» defendants who got a libel claim against them struck out because they were not served with notice pursuant to the Libel and Slander Act.

That's not good because you have the defendant and insurance company on the other side attempting to use that against them.

While there is no bar to an injured party proceeding directly against the defendant regardless of insurance coverage, it is usually in the best interest of the injured person for the insurance company to be involved because of the additional financial resources available.

Allows time spent in actual custody to be credited in each sentence against the term of imprisonment if the defendant is released from custody pending trial on at least one charge, but remains in actual custody because of not being released pending trial on any other charge.

It is alleged by the defendant in error in this case that the plea to the jurisdiction was a sufficient plea; that it shows, on inspection of its allegations, confessed by the demurrer, that the plaintiff was not a citizen of the State of Missouri; that, upon this record, it must appear to this court that the case was not within the judicial power of the United States as defined and granted by the Constitution, because it was not a suit by a citizen of one State against a citizen of another State.

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.

The employee filed a lawsuit claiming that he was discriminated against because of his race, was subjected to a hostile work environment, and that the defendants retaliated against him.

How can a defence barrister, in the proper performance of their duty to the defendant, and to the court, competently cross-examine an accuser — who the defendant suspects of lying because he wants to protect another person, or has a reason to lie against the defendant — if the defendant has no idea who the witness is?

● «Secondly, because the defendant was convicted of the offence before a criminal court, he can have no grounds for disputing the factual basis of the tort now alleged against him, or his liability for its commission.»

In certifying the class action against the settling defendants, Perell J. noted that even in situations where certification is sought for settlement purposes, all of the criteria for certification under s. 5 (1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6 must still be met (though compliance with the criteria is not as strictly required because of the different circumstances associated with settlements).

Inspiration is found especially in Erste Group Bank [2015] EWCA Civ 379, a case in which forum non conveniens was applied even against an England - domiciled defendant because there had already been submission to Russian jurisdiction.

So if you want to appeal a conviction because the trial judge would not allow a lesser included instruction, here is how the court will decide that issue (spoiler alert, they will rule against the Defendant, but this is how they will rule against the Defendant).

Although the reason for this holding makes good and under - appreciated sense from a retributivist perspective — a person ought not be punished for conduct that has not been clearly proven to be the defendant's culpable misconduct, es - pecially if the defendant has various defenses that could be raised as against particular claimants — the new holding poses a substantial risk of reducing incentives to plaintiffs and their counsel because they can not pursue a jackpot of punitive damages based on «total harm.»

-- Joly v. Pelletier, [1999] O.J. No. 1728 (S.C.J.): The plaintiff's claims were that the various defendants were conspiring against him because he was a Martian.

The lawyer will point out that Joly is applicable to actions against non-human defendants, who are not corporations, because the definitions of «defendant» and «plaintiff» in the Ontario legislation (the Courts of Justice Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure) use the same wording.

A dispute arose over a joint venture in which Mr Lukyanenko's companies held 49 % of a Cypriot company In relation to post-judgment freezing orders, just because a defendant has not paid a judgment does not mean a claimant has an automatic right to get a freezing order against that defendant's assets.

Subsection 21 (1) of the Limitations Act, 2002 does not bar the addition of the Estate because, where the defendants have not pleaded a limitations defence, the Estate's claim against the defendants has not expired.