Sentences with phrase «case than the plaintiffs»

I said that the MET research is more consistent with the defendants» case than the plaintiffs».

Not exact matches

Disney shareholders lost their case but the final ruling set a new bar for directors when approving these kinds of exit packages: «If a director acts with conscious disregard — in other words, a looking away — rather than a deliberate intent to violate his duties, he can still be held liable for acting in bad faith,» plaintiffs» attorney Steven G. Schullman told the New York Times back in 2006.

The attorney representing the plaintiffs in this case, Bruce Afran, estimates that Princeton's tax bill should be around $ 40 million, which is 264 % more than what it currently pays.

If both sides, through their eyes and their people's eyes, have concluded that the plaintiff is absolutely going to win this case, and the plaintiff is going to get a lot of money because they're totally on board with everything that has been presented, then that might be a good reason for the defendant to agree to a settlement with the plaintiff for less money than the potential exposure if the jury comes back and finds willful infringement.

He adds, «Where we might have hoped for a level of calm analysis and civic, even civil, discussion of the case in all of its humanity and complexity, we have been given little more than banner headlines, orchestrated press conferences, serial fascination with priestly deviancy, and plaintiff strategy.»

Small claims court cases are much cheaper than superior court cases for both the plaintiff (the person doing the suing) and the defendant (the person being sued) because the parties are not allowed to have any attorneys represent them and other rules that simplify the lawsuit process, making the whole thing much cheaper, faster, and easier.

Judge Claudia Wilken, who presided over the O'Bannon case, issued an order declaring that the NCAA and some of the conferences will have to defend the rules against players receiving more than tuition, room and board (and now a cost - of - attendance stipend) in open court in a case brought by a plaintiff group that includes former Clemson cornerback Martin Jenkins and former Wisconsin forward Nigel Hayes.

«It is the plaintiffs» case that contrary to the amount approved by the government to be paid to them, they received monies less than what the government had approved,» it said.

Plaintiffs in the case challenged the number of NHIS list presented by the EC, saying it should be more than the presented number.

The plaintiffs in that case maintain that eHarmony's decision to establish a separate site for gays rather than integrate its flagship site, eHarmony.com, amounts to an unlawful «separate but equal» policy and the continued marginalization of gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

At first glance it appears ironic that plaintiffs have enjoyed a higher rate of success in adequacy cases than in those grounded in equity.

Beginning in the late 1960s, and accelerating unabated through to the present, plaintiffs have filed more than 125 court cases questioning the constitutionality of school district and school spending levels.

Courts have found for the plaintiffs in more than half of the cases on the grounds that schools are not «adequately» funded (see Figure 1).

The preponderance of evidence, including research presented by the plaintiffs in this case and noted by the court, shows that special population funding levels are dramatically lower than what is needed to provide an excellent education to many Texas students.

All told, the case and bargaining have cost the district more than $ 418,000 in legal bills to date, district officials said, not including $ 550,000 in attorney's fees paid to the plaintiffs.

It seems that the key point in certification being denied was that the plaintiffs» lawyers failed to demonstrate that the alleged actions (essentially shady selling of marketing services) were a company - wide / directed practice, rather than isolated cases.

The lead attorney representing the plaintiffs argued that this rule does not apply in this case because «the exception to this policy is where the officer personally committed a tort: a wrongful act or an infringement of a right (other than under contract) leading to civil legal liability.»

Rather than provide any real smoking gun evidence to the case, this last citation of Oreskes only begs for a pair of really troubling questions: are the lawyers for the San Mateo / Marin / Imperial Beach plaintiffs committing legal profession suicidal by citing evidence which is not available to read?

I urge you to buy the book, not so much because I need the money for my end of the case (which I do) but because when a sclerotic and dysfunctional judicial system co-operates with a cynical and fraudulent plaintiff in turning the DC courts into a 21st century version of trial by ordeal, it is more important than ever to push back by disseminating as widely as possible the opinions of him that Mann is trying to suppress.

«This is the first time any case for a banana worker has come before a U.S. court,» Duane Miller, one of the attorneys representing more than 30 Nicaraguan plaintiffs who worked on plantations from 1964 to 1990, tells BusinessWeek.According to one upcoming lawsuit that was filed in 2004, Dole Fresh Fruit Co. and Standard Fruit Co., now part of Dole, were not only negligent, but that they fraudulently concealed information about DBCP's effects.

«Rather than seeing the Avvo ratings for what they are — «that and $ 1.50 will get you a ride on Seattle's new South Lake Union Streetcar» — plaintiffs Browne and Wenokur want to make a federal case out of the number assigned to them because (a) it could harm their reputation, (b) it could cost them customers / fees, or (c) it could mislead the lawyer - hiring public into retaining poor lawyers or bypassing better lawyers.

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.

The case settled for an amount significantly less than the plaintiffs» pretrial demand of more than $ 1 billion.

Can there be a fraud which this court ought to visit more strongly than the conduct pursued in this case in which in order to avoid the payment of the costs of a doubtful litigation to which the plaintiff might be made liable, the real plaintiff procures a pauper to become the nominal plaintiff?

In some instances a mesothelioma plaintiff will have the option of filing their case in more than one state and will have to pick one.

That was a builder's lien case and in that class of case, one would expect a swifter pace to the action than might be the case of say a personal injury case where a very serious injury and the course of recovery of a plaintiff must be assessed over time.

And despite what the plaintiffs in this case say about their motive in suing the city, the city of Philadelphia has deeper pockets than the officer involved.

This case was solely about assessing the Plaintiffs damages in lieu of notice and should have taken no more than a day of trial time.

It is unlikely the defendant would invest capital in that line of defence for this case, but it is reasonable to say the plaintiff's burden on causation would be somewhat heavier than in a case where the force of the accident is not really in issue, which weigh in favour of a trial in this court.

Although the amount to which the employee may have been entitled under an employment agreement may have been more than the employer ended up paying the plaintiff in this case, given his mitigation earnings, the transactional and opportunity costs associated with a lawsuit would have offset any such savings.

However, in this case the defense team was betting on the 50 % rule, which works like this: if the defense team could convince the jury that the plaintiff (my client, the injured motorcyclist) is more than 50 % at fault for the crash, the defendant (the negligent minivan driver) would not have to pay for non-economic damages, which include pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, scarring and disfigurement, and other long - term problems as a result of the crash.

However, the number and quantum of punitive damages awards is significantly higher in the 2003 - 13 cases where the plaintiff was a corporation than where the plaintiff was a natural person.

The study also showed that, during a 16 - year span from 1988 to 2004, less than 9 percent of the 2,042 cases lost at trial and appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals were reversed for plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases, compared with a 41 percent reversal rate for defendants who lost at trial.

The incentive for settling the case is that it gets the plaintiffs money soon rather than what might otherwise take years if the case went to trial and through the appeals process.

Grauer J. cited the Ontario Superior Court decision in Canadian National Railway Company v. Google Inc. to support the proposition that a higher hurdle would normally be needed than the normal three - part test in R.J.R. McDonald Inc. v. Canada Attorney, where a plaintiff must simply show there is a serious case to be tried.

My objection to the McDonald's coffee case is that McDonald's didn't cause Stella Liebeck to injure herself any more than the manufacturer of Liebeck's sweatpants did, but the plaintiffs sought to hold McDonald's liable anyway.

The plaintiffs» lawyers, however, said they had no contact with the Toronto Sun about the facts of the case and had not discussed the circumstances of the accident with Mandel other than to say the information was in the public domain.

«In this case, Mr. Zayouna actually said he had instructions, which was more than he was required to say for the other side to understand that its offer had been accepted and would be binding on the plaintiff.»

If someone is being sued, I think it would be better that a search of cases finds that the plaintiff may be a delusional litigant than not.

The injunction sought here also effectively prevented the defendants from transferring the allegedly defamatory material to another server or domain, a broader approach than what has historically been used in online defamation cases, but one which arguably better protects the plaintiff's rights.

Today, the Supreme Court decided to let lower courts decide the admissibility of testimony by employees other than the plaintiff regarding workplace discrimination, also known as «me too» evidence, in discrimination cases.

That is much higher than «technically winning case... if the plaintiff has suffered no harm...».

The basis on which the Court of Appeal in those cases concluded that the date of the advance was relevant to costs was because the plaintiff «had in hand more at the start of the action than the amount of the jury's verdict.»

In a personal injury case in Colorado, the burden of proof that a plaintiff carries to prove causation is proof by preponderance of the evidence, which essentially means that the plaintiff must prove that it is more likely than not that their injuries were caused by the actions of the defendant.

They cite cases dealing with situations in which awards at trial are less than an advance, and in which plaintiffs have been deprived of costs as of the date of the advance (McElroy v. Embelton (1996), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 1 (B.C.C.A.); Baxter v. Brown (1997), 28 B.C.L.R. (3d) 351 (B.C.C.A.).

At trial, the plaintiff sought pay in lieu of common law «reasonable notice» and argued that his written contract was unenforceable for two reasons: the contract allowed for termination without notice in case of «continuing incapacity considered permanent» (based on legislation that was later amended) and allowed for termination on only 15 days» notice even though his service at the time entitled him to much more than 15 days» notice under the ESA.

The burden for proving that a defendant's negligence was the legal cause of a plaintiff's injuries is lower, however, than it is in a standard personal injury case.

The firm has successfully litigated more auto crashworthiness cases than any other law firm in Florida and ranks among the most respected plaintiff's auto crashworthiness firms in the nation.

Sometimes, the plaintiff ends up settling the case for a lot less than the case is worth.

In personal injury cases, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant is liable by proving that a reasonable and responsible person would have behaved differently than the defendant if faced with the same scenario.