Sentences with phrase «brought claims against defendant»

Morrison and her family (her son and daughter) brought a claim against the defendant.

Most states attempt to balance a victim's right to bring a claim against a defendant's right to know that a claim will not be brought after a certain period.

Technomed brought a claim against the Defendants for infringement of several rights including (i) the sui generis database right in the Database; (ii) copyright in the Database; and (iii) copyright in the diagrams and explanatory materials.

The Claimant then brought a claim against the Defendant Trust.

Excalibur had brought a claim against the defendant companies, Texas and Gulf for specific performance of a collaboration agreement purportedly granting Excalibur a 30 % share in the potentially lucrative Shaikan oil field in Kurdistan.

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.

Plaintiffs brought claims against the defendants for copyright infringement.

Not exact matches

A High Court claim brought by donor Michael Foster is currently against one named defendant - the party's general secretary Iain McNicol, who is being sued in a representative capacity.

¶ 11, and instead purport to bring these «claims against defendants for having put fossil fuels into the flow of international commerce.»

A civil claim against the defendant can be brought by the estate of the deceased and / or by those who depended upon the deceased for either financial assistance or services.

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.

Acting (with Thomas Grant QC) for the defendant in a claim brought by an international car hire company against an English automotive repair company under long - term service contracts, where it is alleged that the repair company dishonestly carried out millions of pounds of unnecessary work.

A defendant is entitled to expect that a claim of liability brought against it will be decided by the same rules of evidence and substantive law whether the plaintiff is represented by counsel or self - represented.»

Bainbridge has also brought a trade mark infringement and passing off claim against Navigate Travel on behalf of Sail Week Croatia, which alleges that the defendant used the brand Sail Week in a sector that competed with its brand.

[1] The plaintiff, David Ellis, has brought an action against the defendant, Orlex Saul Fallios - Guthierrez, for battery, claiming that he suffered significant physical and emotional injuries.

A complaint is a legal document that lays out the claims that the «plaintiff» (the person or business bringing the lawsuit) has against the «defendant (s)» (the person, people or legal entity being sued).

Corbiere Limited v Mean Trading Systems: Acted for defendants in a claim brought against a start - up algorithmic trading hedge fund alleging misuse of confidential information in the software of the claimants.

If a forum state's courts have «general jurisdiction» over a defendant, this means that the defendant can be sued in that forum on any cause of action against that defendant arising anywhere in the world, regardless of any other relationship that the claim has to the forum state (except for claims in the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts which can be brought in a U.S. District Court located in the same state, or in an arbitration forum pursuant to a valid arbitration clause that binds the parties, an issue beyond the scope of this question and answer).

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.

Workplace accident victims often bring claims against manufacturers of defective equipment, careless drivers, and other defendants that have no employment relationship to them.

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.

The Minister is a mere nominal defendant; the claim is one that is brought against the provincial government.

A medical malpractice claim in Orange County will need to establish several key elements in order to successfully prove that the defendant (the doctor or hospital you are bringing a case against) committed malpractice.

When a lawsuit (or a claim, or a party) is dismissed by a court «with prejudice,» that means that the same cause of action can not be brought again by the same plaintiff against the same defendant.

[1] The appellant, who is a lawyer, brought an action in Small Claims Court against the defendant seeking damages in the amount of $ 14,933.22 for breach of contract.

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.

When a defendant is sued, the defendant is required by law to bring any claims that the defendant has against the plaintiff as a mandatory counterclaim if they are related to the case and is permitted to bring any claims the defendant has against the plaintiff for any reason as a permissive counterclaim.

Eight of the named defendants brought a motion for a summary judgment to have the claims dismissed by reason of there being no cause of action against them.

The judge had been entitled to make orders debarring a defendant from defending the claims brought against him unless he surrendered himself and made proper disclosure of his assets.

In Combs v. Bergen, the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision, and brought an ICBC claim against the Defendant for damages for pain and suffering, wage loss, diminished earning capacity, and cost of future.

When bringing a lawsuit against government defendants, your claims against the individual drivers and the agencies they work for may be different.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgement to have the claims dismissed as against the directors and the holding companies on the basis that they were not employers of the plaintiff and therefore have no place in the action for wrongful dismissal.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion seeking to dismiss the claims against them.

Plaintiff, decedent's husband, brought suit against a number of defendants and claimed that the products of each of those defendants were a substantial factor in causing his wife's mesothelioma.

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.»

In the late twentieth and early twenty - first centuries, however, courts have struggled to find a consistent approach to adjudicating claims brought against multinational corporate defendants.

Most recently, Rachel has been appointed to act as Special Advocate for one of the Claimants in judicial review proceedings brought against the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by three Afghan nationals claiming that they worked for the Defendants in Afghanistan as covert human intelligence sources.

The attorneys at Spesia & Taylor have worked together with other defendants» counsel to obtain favorable results for the client (s), including the Monell claims brought against the departments themselves.

The court held that commercial fisherman could bring a common law negligence claim against a defendant that allegedly polluted Tampa Bay's public waters.

Successful striking out of claim brought against the Second Defendant on the basis of alleged delays in listing a Parole Board hearing.

Kathy has also defended an international dialysis services provider against RICO claims in federal court based on allegedly fraudulent billing activity, represented a pharmaceutical services provider in a billing dispute with a chain of nursing homes, defended home health agencies in suits brought by employees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and represented other providers and associations of providers as plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of matters in federal and state court involving issues ranging from contract interpretation to cash receipts assessments to the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

[3] The third is brought by the defendants Rabbi Mendel Kaplan and Chabad@Flamingo (collectively «Kaplan»), and seeks an order pursuant to rule 21.01 (1)(b) striking out the statement of claim as against them on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action.

As such, the motions for certification were brought for settlement purposes and did not address the claims against the Underwriter Defendants.

A statement from the TSX in the court file says: «The TSX defendants intend to bring motions to strike the statements of claim as they disclose no reasonable cause of action against them.»

The plaintiffs then brought suit against the various defendants, asserting claims for, inter alia, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, negligence, negligence per se, and conversion.

Without evidence that the warranty could not be relied upon, a claimant would struggle to establish that the claim for the loss of value was correctly brought against the defendant tortfeasor.

In practice most child abuse compensation claims are brought against an institutional defendant rather than the individual abuser who committed the abuse.

Where a claim is brought against a defendant, consideration should be given not only to the likelihood of success, as compared to the value of the damages and costs the case exposes the client to, but also to the media coverage of the case, the reduction of the party's goodwill if the issue is fought, and the cost of re-establishing that goodwill.

They brought this action against the defendants, claiming their full share of the annual rental income from the property.

SC11 - 468: Florida Attorney Suspended After Bringing Frivolous Claims against Defendant