Sentences with phrase «claims against other defendants»

However, Indiana personal injury and wrongful death claims against other defendants may still proceed.

The plaintiffs did offer five days before trial to dismiss the claim against the other defendants if the defendants agreed to concede a failure to meet the standard of care and try the causation issue alone.

Not exact matches

The defendants, claims Fagan's suit, «conspired with slave traders, with each other and other entities and institutions... to commit and / or knowingly facilitate crimes against humanity, and to further illicitly profit from slave labor.»

The Catholic Conference and other critics of The Child Victims Act have argued the look - back window would lead to a torrent of frivolous claims against the church and other defendants.

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.

There are some situations wherein the language could prohibit any and all future claims against other potential defendants — and that may not be a scenario you want, depending on the circumstances.

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.

We advise business clients and insurers on pollution and other environmental claims, and have extensive experience litigating claims under federal and state statutes in clean - up cases, either defending against liability and allocation among defendants, or seeking reimbursement for recovery costs from responsible parties.

While the rationale has been described in some quarters as «equitable subrogation,» analogous to an excess insurer's claim against a primary insurer for improvident failure to settle, that principle historically emerged from cases involving underinsured defendants and not the other way around.

The employees» class action claims against IQT and the other defendant alleged in the certification motion, include: wrongful dismissal, conspiracy, negligence, inducing breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty.

It was submitted on behalf of the defendants that Mr Imerman could not assert a claim of breach of confidence against Mrs Imerman because they were husband and wife at the time the server was accessed and therefore no right of confidence existed between them («there is no such duty, no such right enforceable against the other»).

The defendant's response must include what portions of the complaint, if any, the defendant admits to, what specifically the defendant contests, what defenses the defendant may have to any of the allegations made in the complaint, and whether the defendant has claims against the plaintiff or any other party.

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).

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

The plaintiff will file a claim against the defendant, for the money they feel they are owed due to medical expenses, lost time at work, pain and suffering, and any other relevant damages the defendant may have incurred.

If you are the injured party claiming against another driver, you are the plaintiff and the other driver is the defendant.

Hawksford Trustees Jersey Limited — v - Halliwells: Chris is instructed on behalf of the Defendant solicitors in relation to appeals and cross appeals to be heard against the first instance judgment which allowed some heads of claim but not others.

In 2008, another federal court harshly dismissed his claims for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act against two other creditors, noting that Flury had «filed eleven lawsuits against various defendants over the last four years, and with the exception of one case that ended in a default judgment, plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed every action once the defendant moved to dismiss the case or otherwise responded to the complaint.»

This means that it is generally the only recourse available to employees who suffer job - related injuries, except for third - party claims against defendants other than their employers or co-workers.

In the event that you have two claims against a defendant, one being personal injury related and other not, you should be explicit in stating in the settlement how much of it relates to the personal injury claims and which the non-personal injury claim.

Reported cases include: Gill v Meyers (reasonableness and UCTA), Films Rover v Cannon Film Sales (test for grant of mandatory interlocutory injunction), Standard Chartered Bank v PNSC and others (for SGS); Mattis v Toussaint (acted for defendant in successfully resisting claim for finder's fee in respect of stolen painting), Yukong Lines v Rendsburg — The Rialto (tortious conspiracy and ancillary injunctive relief against controller of corporation), REC v Thames Water (test for grant of interlocutory injunction in field of electricity supply), De Molestina and Others v Ponton (acted for defendant in successfully rescission of share distribution agreements), and Marubeni Corporation v Government of Mongolia (claim on state guarothers (for SGS); Mattis v Toussaint (acted for defendant in successfully resisting claim for finder's fee in respect of stolen painting), Yukong Lines v Rendsburg — The Rialto (tortious conspiracy and ancillary injunctive relief against controller of corporation), REC v Thames Water (test for grant of interlocutory injunction in field of electricity supply), De Molestina and Others v Ponton (acted for defendant in successfully rescission of share distribution agreements), and Marubeni Corporation v Government of Mongolia (claim on state guarOthers v Ponton (acted for defendant in successfully rescission of share distribution agreements), and Marubeni Corporation v Government of Mongolia (claim on state guarantee)

The Court may make an order for an interim payment or payment into escrow that will bind all parties to the COF proceedingswhere the Court issatisfied that, if the claim went to trial, the original claimant would obtain judgment for a substantial amount of money (other than costs) against at least one of the defendants.

If you have claims against more than one defendant or insurance company, or are considering a lawsuit over the same injuries against another party, you should also consider whether settling with one defendant could limit or eliminate your right to pursue the other cases.

If the damages caused in the accident are above and beyond the limits of the blanket fleet policy, your personal injury lawyer may be able to pursue a claim against other potential defendants.

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 Defendant will have to file an Answer that says what portions of the Complaint, if any, the defendant admits to, what the Defendant contests, what defenses the Defendant may have, and whether the Defendant has claims against you or any othDefendant will have to file an Answer that says what portions of the Complaint, if any, the defendant admits to, what the Defendant contests, what defenses the Defendant may have, and whether the Defendant has claims against you or any othdefendant admits to, what the Defendant contests, what defenses the Defendant may have, and whether the Defendant has claims against you or any othDefendant contests, what defenses the Defendant may have, and whether the Defendant has claims against you or any othDefendant may have, and whether the Defendant has claims against you or any othDefendant has claims against you or any other party.

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.

5 Nov. 17, 2016)(unpublished), defendants won a «waste» lease dispute against a plaintiff alleging two tort claims, and one of the defendants also won on a slander cross-claim (resulting in $ 1 nominal damages), but lost on three other cross-claims.

In Bolt Burdon v Tariq & Ors [2016] EWHC 811 (QB), Tariq and the other defendants asked the firm to represent them on a contingency fee basis in a claim against AlIied Irish Bank over a mis - sold interest rate swap.

In addition, Northwestpharmacy's claim against the other corporate defendants was the same as its claim against the Yates and Tozman defendants.

The claim against the other named defendants, who played no role in design, manufacture or distribution of the plaintiff's smoke alarm but may have in respect of the other class members, was struck.

On the other hand, the plaintiffs have yet to obtain leave to assert a secondary market liability claim against the Underwriter Defendants and, through the proposed settlements, have already recovered half of their estimated damages ($ 10M as against the plaintiffs» estimate of $ 20M).

Gardner's personal injury claim arose from an automobile accident and was filed against his employer, Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRC), and eight other defendants, six of whom were not related to UPRC.

In that regard, Karakatsanis J. observed that it may not be in the interests of justice to use the new fact - finding powers to grant summary judgment against a single defendant if the claims against other parties will proceed to trial in any event.

Schuckman Realty v. Marine Midland Bank (244 A.D. 2d 400)- broker not entitled to recover a commission from defendant under contract theory where broker entered into brokerage agreements with parties other than the defendant; broker's claim against defendant in quantum meruit fails due to the existence of a valid and enforceable agreement governing the particular subject matter (i.e., commission agreement between broker and other parties).