Sentences with phrase «because plaintiff»

The court affirmed the trial court judgment holding in favor of defendant because plaintiff failed to allege or show that: (1) landlord had actual knowledge or reason to know of the presence of chipping, peeling, and flaking lead paint and that such condition was hazardous, and (2) landlord was given reasonable opportunity to correct hazard.

In Brown v. Wheeler, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the trial court judgment holding in favor of defendant because plaintiff failed to allege or show that: (1) landlord had actual knowledge or reason to know of the presence of chipping, peeling, and flaking lead paint and that such condition was hazardous, and (2) landlord was given reasonable opportunity to correct hazard.

The court further held that because the plaintiff...

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denied the class certification because the plaintiff wasn't able to define an adequate class whose interests were represented by the suit.

The court further held that because the plaintiff could not establish market power, there was no tying arrangement, and no violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

This entire award was then deducted because the Plaintiff could have pursued payment for this directly under his no - fault benefits.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, dismissing an injury claim against involving an unidentified motorist because the Plaintiff had, due to injuries, no recollection of the collision and no evidence to establish driver negligence.

However, it could also be said that the plaintiff led expert evidence, too, because the plaintiff «s lawyer cross-examined the expert and got answers which plaintiff's counsel went on to claim supported the plaintiff's theory of causation.

«Trivial (pur) suits» (nice: DC) exist in most cases because the plaintiff finds a lawyer who is prepared to take the case under payment terms the plaintiff will accept.

The defendant sought this order because the plaintiff's attorneys, who are members of the Florida Bar, had released statements and other prejudicial information with respect to a similar lawsuit involving the same defendant before a federal court in Florida.

There is still the subjective bad faith prong, which was not at issue in this appeal, because Plaintiff did not contest the finding of subjective bad bath.

Because plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to establish a plausible claim that plaintiff could pierce the corporate veil, the trial court erred when it granted Goei's motion to dismiss on the pleadings.

Just as Canadian courts do not take jurisdiction just because a plaintiff has issued a statement of claim in Ontario, naming an out - of - province defendant — there has to be a real and substantial connection or submission — so they shouldn't take jurisdiction to hear any petition for divorce just because they are asked to.

The Court of Appeal dispensed with the main part of the appeal rather briefly, because the plaintiff had no instructions to bring the appeal.

The material contribution test achieves fairness in compensation because the plaintiff has already established a but for causation on a global scale, but is unable to determine which specific defendant was responsible for the injury.

In reaching this conclusion, Justice Morgan cited some of the evidence provided by non-expert witnesses, including the fact that the Defendant had recommended a particular box manufacturer which was rejected by the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff wanted to purchase the boxes from a cheaper source, and also that the Plaintiff acknowledged that smaller boxes would have been more suitable, but elected to go with larger boxes because they looked better.

You're right that the action was dismissed because the plaintiff didn't meet the onus of proof; however, you're explanation of the judge's rationale is slightly off.

Recently, an appellate court issued an opinion in a personal injury case finding that summary judgment should be granted because the plaintiff did not properly respond to the defendant's motion.

Specifically, the defendant argued that the court lacked the power to order a new trial because the plaintiff had failed to pay the filing fee on time.

On February 27th, the New Brunswick Court of Queen's bench dismissed a counterclaim because the plaintiff (by counterclaim) had allowed documents that the defendant required for its defence to be destroyed.

The Court even went to far as to hold that «(w) e will not presume a plaintiff consented to such communications simply because the plaintiff did not object when defendant sought plaintiff's medical records pursuant to a subpoena or request for production of documents.»

Noting that, because the plaintiff claimed loss of enjoyment of her life, depression, and continuing medical issues, the defendants would have been entitled to compel a response to interrogatories seeking the same information, the court granted the defendants» motion.

The trial court ruled initially that the negligence claims were preempted because the plaintiff was using HIPAA as the basis for her claims.

The reason why ICBC played a role is because the Plaintiff was involved in a subsequent car crash.

In a private security contractor's defamation suit against the U.S. involving an allegedly defamatory email, the Norfolk U.S. District Court dismisses the suit because the plaintiff contractor failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act.

This happened in Garcia v. 1162540 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. as Venice Fitness) 1 when the Divisional Court set aside damages awarded by a small claims court judge because the plaintiff had not led evidence of a loss of income.

Because the plaintiff had contributed to his benefit plan, Justice Echlin, relying on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Sylvester v. British Columbia14 held that the plaintiff's LTD damages were not offset by his salary payments.

The Defendants succeeded because the Plaintiff's CPL existed to protect a monetary interest.

Defendant contends the judgments of the general district court are void because plaintiff, Transurban, had not...

The concern raised by plaintiff's counsel, and it is a real concern, is that the jury may assume that because the plaintiff is relatively well - off she does not need to be compensated for future wage loss and they may reduce their awards for general and special damages as well.

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.

But as the Supreme Judicial Court noted in Papadopoulos, «Because the plaintiff here did not slip on snow or ice during a snow storm, we need not and do not decide today whether we agree with this interpretation of the duty of reasonable care.»

Because the plaintiff is left with the burden of proof, the courts allow you to present your side first.

Health insurer terminated coverage because the plaintiff PEOs improperly marketed and resold health insurer's products without approval.

This evidence would not be splitting the plaintiff's case because the plaintiff does not assert that her diagnosis has anything to do with her ulnar nerve.

This fee award was affirmed because plaintiff alleged a signatory defendant was the alter ego of the nonsignatory party and, had plaintiff prevailed on this theory, the nonsignatory would have been liable for fees under Reynolds Metals (one of our Leading Cases).

The defense attorneys argued that the lawsuit for mesothelioma cancer was not allowed because the plaintiff had already sued for scarring of the lungs.

Third, he distinguished the Petrella case on several grounds and noted that different policies are at play in a patent case because a plaintiff would have an incentive to delay in bringing an action, while a plaintiff in a copyright case would probably be impaired by waiting (due to loss of proof of infringement (evidence of copying) and evidence of damages).

[192] I decline to award anything for the three MRIs because the plaintiff decided to do these on his own, when Dr. Hobson told him that they were not medically indicated.

In this case, the Court of Appeals held that the misdiagnosis claim could stand independently because the plaintiff disavowed any negligence related to the underlying surgical procedure.

Tyra v Organ Procurement Agency of Michigan 498 Mich 68; 869 NW2d 213 (2015)(reversing Court of Appeals and reinstating trial court decision to grant summary disposition to client on statute of limitations grounds because plaintiff failed to follow notice of intent requirements after clarifying interaction between MCL 600.1901, 600.2301 and 600.2912 b)

Because the plaintiff failed to satisfy the criteria for a negligence claim, Bulgaria's immunity remained intact.

The defendant argued, unsuccessfully, that because the plaintiff was paid through his professional corporation he was not an employee but an independent contractor and therefore could not be constructively dismissed.

Finally, because the plaintiff was benched and therefore had no earnings at the time of his termination, the trial judge assessed his damages based on his annual earnings in the year immediately preceding his last day before he was benched.

However, this case was unique because plaintiff argued the payments were technically coming from two different sources.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Mississippi dismissed a case brought by the husband of a woman who died while in the care of the defendant because the plaintiff re-filed the case after the applicable statute of limitations had expired.

The Supreme Court found that because the plaintiff was living at the fraternity, participating in traditions of the local fraternity, and subject to the mentorship of a «pledge father» from the local fraternity, that the pledge program was partially under control of the local fraternity.

As a result, the Lipson Neilson defense counsel spontaneously argued that the legal malpractice claim was also barred under the the doctrine of in pari delicto — the wrongful conduct rule — because Plaintiff's criminal conduct in committing perjury at his plea hearing was the central cause of his incarceration and consequential damages.

Because the plaintiff was persistent with her case, and represented by a skilled Indiana medical malpractice attorney, she will get her day in court.

[26] The plaintiff argues that since both parties entered the «intersection» almost simultaneously, because the plaintiff was to the right of the defendant, she had the right - of - way.