Sentences with phrase «by plaintiff and defendant»

In addition, inscription for proof and hearing, which was until now effected by the Plaintiff alone, now must be filed jointly by the Plaintiff and Defendant who must negotiate a Joint Declaration beforehand (article 174).

Jurors listened to concluding statements made by both plaintiffs and defendants on Tuesday, June 14, marking the final stage of the two - month - long manslaughter trial on the deaths of two firefighters in a 2007 blaze at the former Deutsche Bank tower at 130 Liberty St.. The summations came after final testimonies made on Mon., June 7, -LSB-...]

Not exact matches

Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable 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.

Plaintiff Christopher M. Sulyma, on behalf of two proposed classes of participants in the Intel 401 (k) Savings Plan and the Intel Retirement Contribution Plan, claims that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by investing a significant portion of the plans» assets in risky and high - cost hedge fund and private equity investments.

On May 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint alleging that, during that same period, all of the defendants violated Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b - 5 (b) by concealing material information and making false statements related to Parent's acquisition of Autonomy and that certain defendants violated SEC Rule 10b - 5 (a) and (c) by engaging in a «scheme» to defraud investors.

The Court announced that «[t] o prove loss causation, plaintiffs need only show a causal connection between the fraud and the loss by tracing the loss back to the very facts about which the defendant lied.»

The Ninth Circuit took a similar approach in Berson v. Applied Signal Technology, Inc., and ultimately fashioned a standard for loss causation in Nuveen v. City of Alameda when it held that a plaintiff can establish loss causation «by showing that the defendant misrepresented or omitted the very facts that were a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's economic loss.»

I was an expert witness for the plaintiff and we were able to show that the anonymous site was in all likelihood linked to another site known to be run by the defendant because of an under - the - hood WordPress config variable he probably wasn't aware existed (X-Pingback-Url FTW).

According to Athenian law, the jury had to choose between the alternatives proposed by the plaintiff and those of the defendant.

The defendant, in answer, denies that plaintiff or its predecessors now use, or have ever used, the word «Tabasco» as a trade - mark or identifying name for sauce, and specially avers that the word «Tabasco» could not and can not be appropriated as a trade - mark, because it is geographical and descriptive; that plaintiff continually acquiesced in the descriptive use of the word «Tabasco,» and never made a bona fide attempt to establish the trade - mark it now asserts; and that any rights that plaintiff may have had in the name as a trade - mark were lost by the patenting of the process and the expiration of such patent.

It appears from defendant's own statement, that the McIlhenny bottle and carton were used as a guide in the manufacture of his own, and the inference must follow that his intention then was to make it appear to the casual observer that his sauce and that of plaintiff were one and the same, and thus secure the advantage of the extensive advertisement and wide demand for plaintiff's product, which the stipulation shows is sold in every State of the Union and many foreign countries and is handled by a large maj ority of the jobbers in the United States.

Where defendant, manufacturer of a sauce similar to plaintiff's, copied the printed matter on plaintiff's bottle and carton and adopted a bottle and carton of the same size and shape as plaintiff's, he was guilty of unfair competition, although certain differences between the bottles could be discovered when the two were placed side by side.

Defendant Bulliard, concededly, has a perfect right, so far as plaintiff is concerned, to make sauce in accordance with the patent, but he does not pretend to be doing so, and, in fact, since the adoption of the National Prohibition Amendment to the Constitution and the passage of an enforcement statute by Congress, he may not do so, as the patented process provided for a mixture of alcohol as well as vinegar with the pepper pulp.

The fact that defendant has not only dressed his product in imitation of that of the plaintiff, but has, in addition, likewise used plaintiff's trade - mark, gives added reason why the Court should require that hereafter defendant not only discontinue the use of the name «Tabasco,» but that he adopt a new and distinctive bottle and carton, such as will clearly and unmistakably differentiate his sauce from the «Tabasco Pepper Sauce» manufactured by plaintiff.

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.

Such of these other manufacturers, including defendant, whose use of the word «Tabasco» came to the knowledge of plaintiff and its predecessors, have been warned to the effect that they have no right to use the word in connection with the sauce, or to use similar packages, and quite a number of suits for infringement have been filed by plaintiff, most of which have been terminated by consent decrees.

The plaintiff is seeking: A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of the provisions of the 1992 Constitution, particularly Articles 88 (5), 218 (a) and (e), 284 and 287 thereof, the 1st defendant can not act as the legal representative for Honourable Kenneth Nana Yaw Ofori Atta, the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Ghana, in a pending investigation bordering on conflict of interest and abuse of office before the 2nd Defendant; A further declaration that the purported response filed by the 1st Defendant on behalf of the said Honorable Kenneth Nana Yaw Ofori Atta in respect of the petition concerning conflict of interest and abuse of office before the 2nd Defendant is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whdefendant can not act as the legal representative for Honourable Kenneth Nana Yaw Ofori Atta, the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Ghana, in a pending investigation bordering on conflict of interest and abuse of office before the 2nd Defendant; A further declaration that the purported response filed by the 1st Defendant on behalf of the said Honorable Kenneth Nana Yaw Ofori Atta in respect of the petition concerning conflict of interest and abuse of office before the 2nd Defendant is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whDefendant; A further declaration that the purported response filed by the 1st Defendant on behalf of the said Honorable Kenneth Nana Yaw Ofori Atta in respect of the petition concerning conflict of interest and abuse of office before the 2nd Defendant is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whDefendant on behalf of the said Honorable Kenneth Nana Yaw Ofori Atta in respect of the petition concerning conflict of interest and abuse of office before the 2nd Defendant is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whDefendant is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever;

Defendant using his influence, wealth and power lured plaintiff into a relationship and tried spoiling, debase and corrupting the mind of plaintiff by sending plaintiff nude pictures, sex video and masturbating video through Skype, Whatsapp and asked plaintiff to do same.

Plaintiff says that as at the 1st day of September, 2016, she had completed in electing a Presidential candidate with a vice presidential candidate and also prepared 275 parliamentary candidates ready to sponsor them to the public office of the Presidency and Parliament of the Republic of Ghana through the 2016 Ghanaian Presidential and Parliamentary Elections being conducted by the 1st Defendant.

Plaintiff states again that C.I. 94 only re-state the mandate of the 1st Defendant vested discretion of determining the filing fees with respect to the 2016 general elections and not the specific fees to be charged and basis of the fees charged as required by law.

Plaintiff states that on Thursday September 8, 2016, she participated in an Inter-Party Advisory Committee, IPAC, meeting called by the 1st Defendant together with other registered political parties in Ghana during which the parties were informed by the 1st Defendant that the filing fees for Presidential and Parliamentary Elections would be GHC50, 000.00 and GHC10, 000.00 respectively.

A copy of the suit said: «This honourable court will be moved by Gary Nimako Marfo ESQ., counsel for and on behalf of plaintiff / applicants herein praying for an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain defendants / respondents, whether by themselves, agents, servants, workmen, hirelings, privies or any person claiming under or through them or howsoever described, from holding out the second defendant / respondent, [as] the parliamentary candidate - elect for Klottey Korle constituency.»

Plaintiff avers that this filing fees imposed by 1st Defendant is arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.

Plaintiff avers that charging of filing fees for Presidential and Parliamentary Elections in Ghana is discretionary power vested in the 1st Defendant by PNDC Laws 284 and 285.

Plaintiff states again that 2nd Defendant has not said a word against this marauding show of power without any legal justification by the 1st Defendant's request of a deposit of filing fees for the 2016 Presidential and Parliamentary Elections thereby embolden 1st Defendant in perpetuating these obvious illegalities against the political parties and individual candidates in this 2016 general elections.

A copy of the suit, which is available to ClassFMonline.com said: «This honourable court will be moved by Gary Nimako Marfo ESQ., counsel for and on behalf of plaintiff / applicants herein praying for an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain defendants / respondents, whether by themselves, agents, servants, workmen, hirelings, privies or any person claiming under or through them or howsoever described, from holding out the second defendant / respondent, [as] the parliamentary candidate - elect for Klottey Korle constituency.»

And that «if payments have been made to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants under agreements other the two * dated 26th April 2006 *, which were terminated, issues relating to those payments would have to be determined in a forum other than this Court (Supreme Court) and in a different action, since they do not come within the issue of constitutional interpretation raised by the Plaintiff's writ&raquAnd that «if payments have been made to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants under agreements other the two * dated 26th April 2006 *, which were terminated, issues relating to those payments would have to be determined in a forum other than this Court (Supreme Court) and in a different action, since they do not come within the issue of constitutional interpretation raised by the Plaintiff's writ&raquand 3rd Defendants under agreements other the two * dated 26th April 2006 *, which were terminated, issues relating to those payments would have to be determined in a forum other than this Court (Supreme Court) and in a different action, since they do not come within the issue of constitutional interpretation raised by the Plaintiff's writ&raquand in a different action, since they do not come within the issue of constitutional interpretation raised by the Plaintiff's writ».

The plaintiffs are also seeking «damages, including aggravated damages for libel contained in the defendants» publications indorsed on the writ of summons by way of an attachment and particularized in paragraphs 5 and 6 above» and «cost, including lawyer's fees».

Asiedu Nketia, the 2nd Defendant, said «No» and that they needed cash so the Plaintiff decided to issue two cheque payment vouchers on 7th December, 2015 for GH cents 2,000,000.00 and the other one on the same 7th December, 2015 for GH cents 2,199,340.00 and the said vouchers, according to the 2nd Defendant, were received by Gyanu Edgar, an employee of the Electoral Commission.»

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.

«This court is minded to say that the reason for the suspension of the plaintiff by the 1st and 2nd defendants was unconstitutional,» Justice Dimgba said.

By article 46, the first defendant is endowed with independence in the performance of its functions including the initiation, regulation and conduct of elections in the country... In our opinion and as part of our function to declare what the law is, the above words which are unambiguous insulate the Electoral Commission from any external direction and or control in the performance of the functions conferred on it under article 45... A fair consideration of the functions of the first defendant reveals that the demand which was made on it by the plaintiffs regarding the presence of ineligible and deceased persons and the latter's refusal to acquiesce in the said demands which provoked the action herein relates to its mandate under article 45 (a) «to compile the register of voters and revise it at such periods as may be determined by law»By article 46, the first defendant is endowed with independence in the performance of its functions including the initiation, regulation and conduct of elections in the country... In our opinion and as part of our function to declare what the law is, the above words which are unambiguous insulate the Electoral Commission from any external direction and or control in the performance of the functions conferred on it under article 45... A fair consideration of the functions of the first defendant reveals that the demand which was made on it by the plaintiffs regarding the presence of ineligible and deceased persons and the latter's refusal to acquiesce in the said demands which provoked the action herein relates to its mandate under article 45 (a) «to compile the register of voters and revise it at such periods as may be determined by law»by the plaintiffs regarding the presence of ineligible and deceased persons and the latter's refusal to acquiesce in the said demands which provoked the action herein relates to its mandate under article 45 (a) «to compile the register of voters and revise it at such periods as may be determined by law»by law».

According to the plaintiff, the suits numbers are FHC / L / CS / 827/17 and FHC / L / CS / 826/17, adding that the negotiations by the defendants will render the outcome of the suits nugatory.

«It is my belief that the arranged marriage was all part of the grand design by 3rd defendant (Catherine Afeku) to defraud plaintiffs by moving David Thomas from Kumasi to Axim and also milking plaintiffs family».

I noticed that Exhibit AAU the draft MOU, had attached to it a documentation pertaining to a $ 3,000.00 personal loan given to 2nd and 3rd defendants by plaintiff.

The plaintiff and the second defendant in the matter, Valentino Nii Noi, who won the primary, agreed to the submission and moved the motion to set aside the earlier default judgement given by the court when the party failed to make an appearance.

The plaintiff, in its originating summons stated that «the allegations made against the 1st and 2nd defendants (Amaechi and Onu) by the two Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria... are grievous enough to warrant their arrest, investigation and prosecution by the 3rd and 4th defendants (DSS and EFCC).»

The Human Rights Division of the Superior court of Jurisdiction in High court of Justice Accra, preferred an out of court settlement, which was accepted by both the plaintiffs, Mr. Philip Ayamba and seven others and the Defendant, the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General's Department in respect of L.I 2146.

Delivering the ruling, Tsoho said, «The plaintiff raised two issues in the written address for determination, to wit: Whether or not the 1st defendant (Saraki) can reject a valid statutory appointment made by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to the Office (of the Chairman) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission in accordance with the provisions of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004 and whether or not the 1st defendant is bound by the provisions of the EFCC Act, 2004, with respect to the confirmation of any appointment made by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to the office of the Chairman of the EFCC.»

In a writ sighted by OTECFMGHANA.COM, Mr. Agyepong is asking the court to issue «an order compelling the first defendant to immediately cause to be retracted the defamatory statement via the same medium used in making them thus through the frequency modulation of the second defendant and to render an unqualified apology to the plaintiff via the same media.

He also sought an order of interim injunction restraining the second and third defendants, whether by themselves, servants, agents, privies or howsoever called from forwarding a fresh name or governorship aspirant to the first defendant, when the plaintiff was still alive and had not withdrawn his candidacy for the governorship election of Bayelsa State, pending the determination of the substantive suit.

The Bayelsa State governor wanted an order of interim injunction restraining the first defendant, whether by itself, servant, agents, privies or howsoever called from accepting from the second and third defendants any fresh submission of names of governorship aspirant from Bayelsa State, to change / substitute the name of the plaintiff which had already been submitted to the first defendant after the primary election of January 2011, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

«To the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the Plaintiff [Dominic Ayine] brought this action in his name fronting for the immediate past Government to set at naught the popular wishes of the majority of the Ghanaian electorate who see the President's acceptance of the nomination of the 2nd Defendant [Martin Amidu] as Special Prosecutor, as being in the national interest to attack the canker of corruption in the body politic,» Martin Amidu indicated in his affidavit verification sighted by Citi News.

In a suit filed Wednesday night, the plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the law is unconstitutional and an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the provisions by the attorney's general's office and the Joint Commission on Public Ethics, which are the defendants in the case.

In the Originating Summons marked FHC / ABJ / CS / 232/2018, the plaintiff 8 issues for determination by the court, including: Having regards to the combined provisions of sections 79,116,118,132,153,160 (1) and 178 of the 1999 constitution as amended, the constitution read together with paragraph 15 (a) of the third schedule to the same constitution, whether the 3rd defendant (Independent National Electoral Commission) is not the only institution or body constitutionally vested with the powers and vires to organized, undertake and supervised elections to the offices of the president, the vice president of the federal republic of Nigeria, the Governor and deputy governor of a state, the membership of the Senate, the House of Representatives and the House of Assembly of each state of the federation, including fixing the sequence and dates of the elections to the said offices?

The case was won by the defendant (the organiser) without any question, and the plaintiff was questioned as to the wisdom of such a pedantic action.

While the district withdrew as a defendant in the case before the trial started, she was called by the defense in an effort to impeach the testimony of a plaintiffs» witness, Nicholas Melvoin, a former LA Unified teacher at Markham Middle School in Watts, who had testified last month that teacher layoffs in 2009 resulted in effective teachers being dismissed and morale at the school eroded.

Appeal from judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Mark D. Fox, Magistrate Judge), which held that defendant Board of Education of the Newburgh Enlarged City School District intentionally discriminated against plaintiff Santina Polera in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and awarded damages to plaintiff.

Whereas, Plaintiff, the United States of America filed its Complaint on April 11, 2012, alleging that Defendants conspired to raise retail prices of E-books in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1, and Plaintiff and Settling Defendants, by their respective attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law;

[Geek note: structured settlements arise when a plaintiff wins a court case, and a stream of payments must be made by a defendant for the rest of the plaintiff's life.