Sentences with phrase «claims court case in»

Can I file a small claims court case in the state I reside against him (Texas)?

But what they all share in common is a knowledge of and profound interest in the same legal subject area — pharmaceutical class actions, say, or business process patents, or asset securitization, or child custody proceedings in Oregon, or small - claims court cases in Nova Scotia, or wealth management in New South Wales, or any of the law's thousands upon thousands of sub-specialties.

Not exact matches

The «fib» to which Journal was clearly referring was the government's claim, made repeatedly in those same court filings, that it was only interested in cracking the San Bernardino case, not in setting a precedent.

In December, the Yukon appeal court sided with the Ross River Dena Council that existing free - entry staking rules conflicted with the constitutional duty to consult aboriginal groups with outstanding land claims, in this case to an area known as the KaskIn December, the Yukon appeal court sided with the Ross River Dena Council that existing free - entry staking rules conflicted with the constitutional duty to consult aboriginal groups with outstanding land claims, in this case to an area known as the Kaskin this case to an area known as the Kaska.

«Many of these types of claims are designed to simply get a payout from an employer who did not want to get bound up in the expense of a court case».

«This case has already been dismissed with prejudice by the court that heard it, which ruled in Yelp's favor and also found the claims not to be supported by credible evidence,» Vince Sollitto, Yelp's vice president of communications said.

Another difference between a sole proprietor and a C corporation that imposes a bureaucratic burden arises if and when a corporation wishes to bring a case in small claims court.

He said their attempts to move the case from the state court in Los Angeles where Daniels filed her claim to a federal court is because it would increase the chances that the matter will be decided in private arbitration, «thus hiding the truth from the public.»

Contrary to what the plaintiffs in the case were claiming, there was no «flooding» of any sort, according to the solar industry association in response to the court ruling.

In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada had created a sophisticated legal test on workplace anti — discrimination claims, but, as the Court acknowledged in Tawney Meiorin's case, this test had proven to be complicated and challenging to usIn 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada had created a sophisticated legal test on workplace anti — discrimination claims, but, as the Court acknowledged in Tawney Meiorin's case, this test had proven to be complicated and challenging to usin Tawney Meiorin's case, this test had proven to be complicated and challenging to use.

Mr. Trump formally joined his legal team's response to Ms. Clifford's suit in a motion, filed Friday, to move the case from state court in Los Angeles, where Ms. Clifford filed her claim, to federal court.

For more than a year, a court - appointed trustee has been unraveling the case in federal bankruptcy court, working to gather assets and figure out claims that can be paid to investors.

He said their attempts to move the case from the state court in Los Angeles where Daniels filed her claim to a federal court is because that would increase the chances the matter be decided in private arbitration, «thus hiding the truth from the public.»

While predatory pricing technically remains illegal, it is extremely difficult to win predatory pricing claims because courts now require proof that the alleged predator would be able to raise prices and recoup its losses.405 Revising predatory pricing doctrine to reflect the economics of platform markets, where firms can sink money for years given unlimited investor backing, would require abandoning the recoupment requirement in cases of below - cost pricing by dominant platforms.

In Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 98 the Supreme Court formalized this premise into a doctrinal test.The case involved cigarette manufacturing, an industry dominated by six firms.99 Liggett, one of the six, introduced a line of generic cigarettes, which it sold for about 30 % less than the price of branded cigarettes.100 Liggett alleged that when it became clear that its generics were diverting business from branded cigarettes, Brown & Williamson, a competing manufacturer, began selling its own generics at a loss.101 Liggett sued, claiming that Brown & Williamson's tactic was designed to pressure Liggett to raise prices on its generics, thus enabling Brown & Williamson to maintain high profits on branded cigarettes.

At issue in the case is whether SLUSA divests state courts of jurisdiction over class actions asserting claims arising under the Securities Act of 1933 (e.g., claims alleging a material misstatement in a registration statement).

The company was hauled into Canadian court because of hyped - up claims, like «bottled water is the most environmentally responsible consumer product in the world» - a classic and transparent case of greenwashing.

A Boca Raton attorney handling the case, Audra Simovitch, now is claiming in court documents that Deschamps is blocking discovery of the true assets in the estate.

And given that Mr. Hogan has had financial ups and downs, the cost of the hundreds of motions his lawyers made is significant, and the chances the award is significantly reduced based on previous cases he lost making the same claims in federal court, it's hard to completely understand the motivations at play.

Close students of the Supreme Court will tell you that they could see this coming: Compassion in Dying is only the first of many cases based on claims of autonomous individualism that the Court invited with its loose and grandiose Casey language.

Following the review's publication, Bishop Peter Hancock, the Church of England's lead safeguarding bishop, said: «At the heart of this case was a judgment, on the balance of probabilities, as to whether, in the event that her claim for compensation reached trial, a court would have concluded that Carol was abused by Bishop Bell.

In Reynolds v. United States (1878), a case rejecting a claim that it was unconstitutional to prosecute Mormons for polygamy, the Supreme Court accepted Jefferson's «wall of separation» letter as the «authoritative» interpretation of the First Amendment.

In those cases the court deferred to the judgment of the Air Force that the free - exercise claim of a Jewish officer who wore his yarmulke on duty could not be accommodated; it deferred to the judgment of correctional authorities that the free - exercise claim of a Black Muslim to attend Friday afternoon religious services could not be accommodated; it deferred to the judgment of the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service that building a logging road through a national forest was necessary despite the damage to religious practices of Native American tribes in that area; it deferred to the Internal Revenue Service's ruling that Bob Jones University was not entitled to tax exemption because of its religiously motivated rule against interracial dating and marriage on campus; it deferred to the judgment of the secretary of labor that a religious community must pay its members the minimum wage for work they performed in the group's business although the members said they had religious objections to being paid for their worIn those cases the court deferred to the judgment of the Air Force that the free - exercise claim of a Jewish officer who wore his yarmulke on duty could not be accommodated; it deferred to the judgment of correctional authorities that the free - exercise claim of a Black Muslim to attend Friday afternoon religious services could not be accommodated; it deferred to the judgment of the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service that building a logging road through a national forest was necessary despite the damage to religious practices of Native American tribes in that area; it deferred to the Internal Revenue Service's ruling that Bob Jones University was not entitled to tax exemption because of its religiously motivated rule against interracial dating and marriage on campus; it deferred to the judgment of the secretary of labor that a religious community must pay its members the minimum wage for work they performed in the group's business although the members said they had religious objections to being paid for their worin that area; it deferred to the Internal Revenue Service's ruling that Bob Jones University was not entitled to tax exemption because of its religiously motivated rule against interracial dating and marriage on campus; it deferred to the judgment of the secretary of labor that a religious community must pay its members the minimum wage for work they performed in the group's business although the members said they had religious objections to being paid for their worin the group's business although the members said they had religious objections to being paid for their work.

Religious litigants claimed victories in all four cases involving religious freedom to reach the Supreme Court this past term.

Rules of court are dictated by what is expedient on the whole and in the long run; but they run the risk of being unjust to the claims of particular cases.

The opinion [Scalia continues] in these cases is the furthest extension in fact — and the furthest extension one can even imagine — of the Court's claimed power to create «liberties» that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention.

The question might seem a befuddling one for a ballot in the heartland, but it stems from a New Jersey legal case in which a Muslim woman went to a family court asking for a restraining order against her spouse claiming he had raped her repeatedly.

While the case was decided 5 — 4, the opinions that accompanied the court's decision also signal that seven of the nine justices agree that businesses can make religious liberty claims in court — an important ruling, said Joshua Hawley, senior counsel for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

In this same court case, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system.

Rubashkin's lawyers claimed Thursday that U.S. District Court Chief Judge Linda Reade, the judge in the case, met with the law - enforcement team that participated in the May 2008 immigration raid of Agriprocessors kosher meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa.

There was that Christian Hewlett - Packard employee who was fired for posting anti-gay Bible verses back in 2004, but he was actively protesting the company's new diversity in the workplace strategy, so he lost his court case claim of discrimination.

In a December 3, 2017 order dismissing the case that is likely to be viewed with some relief by many dairy companies, US district judge Katherine B Forrest agreed with Dannon, noting that a court handling a similar false advertising lawsuit about «non-GMO» claims on dairy products fed GM feed (Gallagher v. Chipotle Mexican Grill) rejected a similar claim at the pleading stage.

The claims and cross claims will make for a riveting court case and no doubt pique investor's interests as the success of a2 — and the surge in its share price from 55 cents to almost $ 2 in the past year — rests largely on its health claims, which will be scrutinised in open court.

In assessing the market in that case the court rejected the claim that there was a separate market for the wholesale supply of packaged groceries to independent supermarket retailerIn assessing the market in that case the court rejected the claim that there was a separate market for the wholesale supply of packaged groceries to independent supermarket retailerin that case the court rejected the claim that there was a separate market for the wholesale supply of packaged groceries to independent supermarket retailers.

A New Jersey Superior Court Judge ruled Thursday that fraud claims against New York Giants quarterback Eli Manning in a memorabilia civil case will still go to trial.

In papers submitted by the UK Government last year in the case and seen by the BHA, the Government attempted to argue that there is no breach of EU law because «if a teacher brought a claim against a school (on the basis that the school, as an employer, had discriminated against them in their remuneration, for example), then the court or tribunal would consider the legislation in this wider contexIn papers submitted by the UK Government last year in the case and seen by the BHA, the Government attempted to argue that there is no breach of EU law because «if a teacher brought a claim against a school (on the basis that the school, as an employer, had discriminated against them in their remuneration, for example), then the court or tribunal would consider the legislation in this wider contexin the case and seen by the BHA, the Government attempted to argue that there is no breach of EU law because «if a teacher brought a claim against a school (on the basis that the school, as an employer, had discriminated against them in their remuneration, for example), then the court or tribunal would consider the legislation in this wider contexin their remuneration, for example), then the court or tribunal would consider the legislation in this wider contexin this wider context.

Polling showing 81 % of public support assisted dying: http://humanism.org.uk/2012/09/07/news-1108/ Previous BHA news article — «L' waives right to anonymity in assisted dying court case: http://humanism.org.uk/2013/04/18/paul-lamb-l-waives-right-to-anonymity-in-assisted-dying-court-case/ Previous BHA news article — Court of Appeal allows «L' to join Tony Nicklinson Claim: http://humanism.org.uk/2013/03/20/court-of-appeal-allows-l-to-join-tony-nicklinson-claim/ Previous BHA news article — New case to test rules on assisted dying in UK: http://humanism.org.uk/2011/08/19/news-873/ The BHA's campaign on Assisted Dying: http://humanism.org.uk/campaigns/public-ethical-issues/assisted-dcourt case: http://humanism.org.uk/2013/04/18/paul-lamb-l-waives-right-to-anonymity-in-assisted-dying-court-case/ Previous BHA news article — Court of Appeal allows «L' to join Tony Nicklinson Claim: http://humanism.org.uk/2013/03/20/court-of-appeal-allows-l-to-join-tony-nicklinson-claim/ Previous BHA news article — New case to test rules on assisted dying in UK: http://humanism.org.uk/2011/08/19/news-873/ The BHA's campaign on Assisted Dying: http://humanism.org.uk/campaigns/public-ethical-issues/assisted-dcourt-case/ Previous BHA news article — Court of Appeal allows «L' to join Tony Nicklinson Claim: http://humanism.org.uk/2013/03/20/court-of-appeal-allows-l-to-join-tony-nicklinson-claim/ Previous BHA news article — New case to test rules on assisted dying in UK: http://humanism.org.uk/2011/08/19/news-873/ The BHA's campaign on Assisted Dying: http://humanism.org.uk/campaigns/public-ethical-issues/assisted-dCourt of Appeal allows «L' to join Tony Nicklinson Claim: http://humanism.org.uk/2013/03/20/court-of-appeal-allows-l-to-join-tony-nicklinson-claim/ Previous BHA news article — New case to test rules on assisted dying in UK: http://humanism.org.uk/2011/08/19/news-873/ The BHA's campaign on Assisted Dying: http://humanism.org.uk/campaigns/public-ethical-issues/assisted-dcourt-of-appeal-allows-l-to-join-tony-nicklinson-claim/ Previous BHA news article — New case to test rules on assisted dying in UK: http://humanism.org.uk/2011/08/19/news-873/ The BHA's campaign on Assisted Dying: http://humanism.org.uk/campaigns/public-ethical-issues/assisted-dying/

Rather than file any case in the US at all they should have only responded to the original claim by mail stating the French court has no jurisdiction and if they want to bring any case at all they must bring it in the US.

(b) To press hard to sort out all tricky consular cases where injustice looks a factor — and tell the public that those who claim that FCO success in Case A entitles them to compensation in less successful Case B will be fought tooth and nail in the courts.

Under the proposed changes fewer cases would come before the court, as those «identical in substance to a claim that has been considered by a national court» would no longer be eligible - unless the national court had failed to interpret the convention correctly.

In the Mau Mau case, three Kenyan survivors of atrocities committed during the suppression of the Mau Mau insurgency recently won the right to claim damages against Britain in the High Court in London (a fourth claimant died before the conclusion of the processIn the Mau Mau case, three Kenyan survivors of atrocities committed during the suppression of the Mau Mau insurgency recently won the right to claim damages against Britain in the High Court in London (a fourth claimant died before the conclusion of the processin the High Court in London (a fourth claimant died before the conclusion of the processin London (a fourth claimant died before the conclusion of the process).

Mr Antwi - Boasiako has said he stands by his claim and is looking forward to proving his case in court.

NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio explained why he has refused to comment on the blockbuster appeals court ruling in favor of ex-Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, claiming he hasn't «paid attention» to the state's biggest political corruption case in decades.

This intriguing revelation by the ICC didn't come as a surprise to some of us who have been following this case since 2010 and have always been of the view that the Supreme Court of Ghana erred in linking Mr.Woyome's claims for works done for the state in 2005 to a waterville contract in 2006 on which basis it asked Mr.Woyome to refund all his entitlement paid him.

On January 30, a small claims court in Los Angeles County heard arguments in the case called Patel v Associated Students.

A seventh alleged victim, whose case is being handled by a different law firm from the other six defendants, planned to sue in U.S. District court, claiming civil rights violations, according to people familiar with that case.

In reality, the court denied Nilsen even permission to bring a claim, as there was no arguable case that any of his human rights were being breached.

We find it very bizarre that the Hon. Attorney - General, Ms Gloria Akufo, who assured the entire citizenry of her commitment to fairness and strict adherence to ethical principles at her vetting not too long ago, will claim that she exercised the said constitutional discretion on grounds merely that there was a lack of evidence to prosecute the case in question when indeed, the Siting Judge, Court Clerks, Court Bailiffs, Court Warrant Officers (CWOs), Journalists as well as notable public figures in whose presence the said court was physically attacked and the accused persons freed, are alive and available to be interviewed and evidence taken from Court Clerks, Court Bailiffs, Court Warrant Officers (CWOs), Journalists as well as notable public figures in whose presence the said court was physically attacked and the accused persons freed, are alive and available to be interviewed and evidence taken from Court Bailiffs, Court Warrant Officers (CWOs), Journalists as well as notable public figures in whose presence the said court was physically attacked and the accused persons freed, are alive and available to be interviewed and evidence taken from Court Warrant Officers (CWOs), Journalists as well as notable public figures in whose presence the said court was physically attacked and the accused persons freed, are alive and available to be interviewed and evidence taken from court was physically attacked and the accused persons freed, are alive and available to be interviewed and evidence taken from same.

@Anixx When you are a witness in a criminal case, you claim you don't remember anything and a court finds that to be very unlikely, it can bring you in trouble for obstruction of justice in some jurisdictions.

In arriving at the decision, Justice Saidu relied on the recent Court of Appeal decision in the case of LASWA & Ors vs. NIWA & Ors, adding that the Plaintiffs failed to establish the identity of the land claimeIn arriving at the decision, Justice Saidu relied on the recent Court of Appeal decision in the case of LASWA & Ors vs. NIWA & Ors, adding that the Plaintiffs failed to establish the identity of the land claimein the case of LASWA & Ors vs. NIWA & Ors, adding that the Plaintiffs failed to establish the identity of the land claimed.