Sentences with phrase «against the defendants within»

The learned silk further argued that separation of the trial as canvassed by the applicants would further delay the speedy trial of the joint charge stressing that the prosecution was fully prepared to prove the case against the defendants within a reasonable time.

The plaintiff knew she had a claim against the defendants within the limitation period.

Not exact matches

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».

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.

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

Motion to be heard 12 (1) If a defendant against whom a proceeding is brought or maintained considers the whole of the proceeding or any claim within the proceeding has been brought in response to their expression or public participation, the defendant may, subject to subsection (2), bring an application for one or more of the following orders: a) To dismiss the proceeding or claim, as the case may be; b) For costs and expenses; c) For punitive or exemplary damages against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff filed her claim against the defendant condominium corporation within the 2 - year limitation period.

As stated in Briggs and Rees Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (2005) 4th edition at paras 2.02 to 2.07 & 2.105: (i) The fundamental rule was that if a case fell within the Brussels Regulation, the Regulation alone allocated jurisdiction over the defendant; (ii) There were three overriding principles of interpretation: (i) the wording of the regulation should so far as possible be given a meaning which was common and uniform across the various member states; (ii) provisions which allowed a defendant to be sued against his will in a member state other than his domicile were to be construed narrowly; (iii) the risk of inconsistent decisions should be kept to a minimum.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal will decide within a few months in Taseka Mines v Western Canadian Wilderness Committee, a defamation suit that the defendants claim is a SLAPP action meant to stop their campaign against a proposed mine.

A default divorce happens when the spouse against whom the divorce is filed (the defendant) doesn't respond within the required time limits.

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.

Once jurisdiction is established against one or more Defendants within this jurisdiction, the question of which claims may be pleaded and proved against them is a question of the applicable law of the tort.

For the state of Arizona, a plaintiff must file a dram shop liability claim within one year against the defendant (s).

A.I. Enterprises Ltd. v. Bram Enterprises Ltd., 2014 SCC 12 (34863) The tort should be kept within narrow bounds, and be available in three party situations where the defendant commits an unlawful act against a third party that intentionally causes economic harm to the plaintiff.

Would someone be able to come into court and use the fact that the defendant was within the «warn limit» to support a negligence per se action, when the defendant never had the opportunity to mount a defense against this non-crime?

The stay of proceedings in British Columbia means that Northwestpharmacy's claims against all the defendants are now within the jurisdiction of an arbitrator under the International Rules of the American Arbitration Association.

A copyright - owning plaintiff must still establish the elements of infringement against the service provider — whether for direct infringement or under a theory of secondary liability (like vicarious infringement)-- even if the defendant does not find itself within the DMCA safe harbor.