Sentences with phrase «claims court case over»

Not exact matches

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).

He claimed that the case was aimed at establishing the High Court's jurisdiction over SPDC, opening the door for further claims.

In January 2012, in a speech in Strasburg, Prime Minister David Cameron set out an agenda for reforming the ECtHR which would reduce the number of admissible cases, and thus the backlog, by ensuring that the Court did not act as a small claims court or Court of Fourth Instance and did not go over national decisions where it did not neeCourt did not act as a small claims court or Court of Fourth Instance and did not go over national decisions where it did not neecourt or Court of Fourth Instance and did not go over national decisions where it did not neeCourt of Fourth Instance and did not go over national decisions where it did not need to.

«The proper procedure was for a suit to be filed at a court or tribunal which had jurisdiction over the claims of the parties, and if that court in the course of determining the case took the view that the said issue was one of interpretation, that court will refer the issue to the Supreme Court according to article 130 (2) of the 1992 constitution», he acourt or tribunal which had jurisdiction over the claims of the parties, and if that court in the course of determining the case took the view that the said issue was one of interpretation, that court will refer the issue to the Supreme Court according to article 130 (2) of the 1992 constitution», he acourt in the course of determining the case took the view that the said issue was one of interpretation, that court will refer the issue to the Supreme Court according to article 130 (2) of the 1992 constitution», he acourt will refer the issue to the Supreme Court according to article 130 (2) of the 1992 constitution», he aCourt according to article 130 (2) of the 1992 constitution», he added.

General News of Thursday, 10 May 2018 Source: citinewsroom.com Finance Minister, Ken Ofori - Atta The Supreme Court has adjourned the case in which the Finance Minister, Ken Ofori - Atta, has been sued over claims of conflict of interest in the April 2017 $ 2.25 billion bond issue.

WASHINGTON (CNN)- The Supreme Court's conservative majority expressed varying degrees of concern Wednesday over a civil rights case brought by 20 firefighters, most of them white, who claim reverse discrimination in promotions.

The case has gone through multiple hearings (details below), resulting in a court order that requires DEMS scientists to turn over all data related to DEMS, including drafts of scientific papers based on that data, to the mining coalition and to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce, which claims jurisdiction over the study.

Perry, a senior at West Charlotte High, a formerly all - black school on the city's west side, was protesting a court case that found one white parent suing the school system over the claim that his daughter was twice denied entry to a local magnet school on the basis of her race.

For a re-cap, a court in the US had ordered Samsung to pay over $ 1 billion in the patent dispute case after the jury was convinced by Apple's claims of Samsung having copied the look and feel of popular Apple products, which includes the iPhone and iPad.

Over the years, the case escalated from LTB hearing, to small claims court, to a criminal matter before the Ontario Superior Court of Juscourt, to a criminal matter before the Ontario Superior Court of JusCourt of Justice.

Failing to review the Proof of Claim filed by your private student loan company may harm you not only in your bankruptcy case, but even after it's over because you'll be prevented from disputing the balance due and the ownership of the loan if the lender sues you in state court after bankruptcy.

In an explosive case, a New York collector has sued Jeff Koons's studio and the artist's dealer Gagosian Gallery in New York Supreme Court, claiming that they have failed to deliver three sculptures despite him paying over USD$ 13 million for them.

The other intriguing aspect of the New Zealand case is that when the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition took NIWA to court over its distorted figures, NIWA claimed there is no «official» temperature record, and therefore it couldn't be held responsible for what the figures showed.

The Supreme Court of Canada will hear five appeals this week, including three criminal cases involving driving «over 80» and production of evidence; an unjust enrichment claim; and an appeal in a sexual assault case in which the Court of Appeal of Alberta had found that a trial judge had erred by relying on a stereotype about the behaviour of sexual assault victims.

On Friday, it didn't take long (after this blog was first to highlight the issue because I had been following the «Posner case» in detail over the years) before the appeals court ruling affirming Judge Posner's claim construction of the» 647 patent was discussed everywhere, and that was good.

It asked the court to tell the jury about that interpretation of the patent (which will now finally happen, tomorrow, as a result of the Federal Circuit decision), and it wanted to point to Apple's own 60 - cent - per - device damages claim over this patent in the Motorola case.

The case went to trial, and the court found in favor of the plaintiff on the failure to supervise claim and the failure to properly inspect the premises, and it awarded over $ 50,000 in damages.

According to an update issued on January 15th, there are now over 1,100 cases pending in the U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, where all federally - filed Bair Hugger claims are undergoing coordinated pretrial proceedings.

In addition, in the Durant International case the court allowed the claimant to depart from the usual first - in - first - out or last - in - first - out tracing rules and instead permitting what was effectively «reverse tracing» through mixed funds — prioritising the larger purpose of a series of transactions over the ability to identify the precise funds to which the claim attached.

Since litigation is expensive (over a half a million was claimed by plaintiff's side in the below case), courts would not penalize a business for being overly - cautious.

In the case of an infant's claim, any settlement must be approved by the Public Guardian and Trustee, and in the case of settlements over $ 50,000, the Public Trustee reviews the proposed settlement and makes recommendations to the Court as to the appropriateness of the settlement, including any legal fees if the infant has a lawyer, and the Court makes the final decision on the matter.

Johnson & Johnson must pay $ 72 million to the family of a woman who blamed her fatal ovarian cancer on the company's talcum powder in the first state - court case over the claims to go to trial.

Did you ever hear about the case of the lawyer and judge who went to court over the issue of whether the lawyer could run an ad claiming that the judge thought he was a great lawyer?

The case law indicates that the merging of the Small Claims Court into the Ontario Court (General Division) in the 1990s did not invest the provincially appointed court with s. 96 powers (Domtar Commercial Roofing and Insulation v. Exeter Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., 1993 CanLII 5563 (ON SC)-RRB-, and it is likely that only federal legislation could do so since s. 96 courts had jurisdiction over copyright matters in Court into the Ontario Court (General Division) in the 1990s did not invest the provincially appointed court with s. 96 powers (Domtar Commercial Roofing and Insulation v. Exeter Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., 1993 CanLII 5563 (ON SC)-RRB-, and it is likely that only federal legislation could do so since s. 96 courts had jurisdiction over copyright matters in Court (General Division) in the 1990s did not invest the provincially appointed court with s. 96 powers (Domtar Commercial Roofing and Insulation v. Exeter Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., 1993 CanLII 5563 (ON SC)-RRB-, and it is likely that only federal legislation could do so since s. 96 courts had jurisdiction over copyright matters in court with s. 96 powers (Domtar Commercial Roofing and Insulation v. Exeter Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., 1993 CanLII 5563 (ON SC)-RRB-, and it is likely that only federal legislation could do so since s. 96 courts had jurisdiction over copyright matters in 1867.

I have over 22 years of experience in personal injury claims, and if there is any difficulty in getting satisfaction from the responsible party's insurance company, I am very qualified to take the case to civil court to pursue justice.

The plaintiff in the case was injured in January 2010 after tripping over a carpet in his apartment, but a claim against his landlord was not filed in court until December 2011.

A relatively recent case in the federal appellate court that has jurisdiction over Florida federal courts held that claims based on sexual orientation are not covered by the federal law governing employment discrimination.

An attorney from our firm can assist you with every aspect of your accident claim, from gathering evidence such as police reports and witness statements to prove that the other party was not only driving drunk but also caused your accident, to negotiating with the insurance company over the value of your claim and even taking your case to court for a full jury trial should this prove necessary.

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.»

In this case, a large regional developer filed a claim against our client seeking over AED 150 million damages before the Dubai local courts despite the fact the agreement between them contained an arbitration clause.

Represented the claimant in an arbitration arising out of an LME contract for the sale of iron ore (FOB Mumbai), being the only known case in which commercial arbitrators were required by the English High Court to accept jurisdiction over defamation claims.

A widow's claim over a fatal car crash in Cairo has been disallowed by the Supreme Court, in a long - awaited case on personal injury outside the EU.

Nearly 1,180 cases have been resolved through the DIFC Courts since 2008, while over 90 % of Small Claims Tribunal cases are concluded within three weeks.

In all cases, the Ontario - based plaintiffs sought to have their claims tried in Ontario and in all cases the foreign defendants sought to stay the actions on the basis that Ontario courts did not have jurisdiction over the claims against them or, alternatively, on the basis that Ontario was not a convenient forum for those claims.

The brief supported the plaintiffs in the case, members of Jara's family, explaining that a U.S. court's decision to accept jurisdiction over plaintiffs» claims would be consistent with the Republic of Chile's goals of justice and accountability for human rights abuses committed during the Pinochet regime.

Bad news for the disgruntled divorce client in the case reported on here Nov. 17: a state appellate court has ordered San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay to reconsider his ruling allowing the client to claim emotional distress damages over the attorney's alleged mishandling of his divorce (which the attorney dencourt has ordered San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay to reconsider his ruling allowing the client to claim emotional distress damages over the attorney's alleged mishandling of his divorce (which the attorney denCourt Judge Ronald Quidachay to reconsider his ruling allowing the client to claim emotional distress damages over the attorney's alleged mishandling of his divorce (which the attorney denies).

Also, defendants have an opportunity to counter-sue, and in those cases where they are requesting relief of over $ 5,000 it is appropriate to remove the case from small claims court.

The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and Turner appealed to the Eleventh Circuit (which has appellate jurisdiction over federal cases arising from Alabama, Georgia and Florida).

Rather, as the Supreme Court has explained in a series of decisions over the past decade, the rule in patent cases should be the same as in any other sort of litigation — in this case, the equitable doctrine of laches may not be used by accused infringers as a defense because there is a statute of limitations present to limit claims.

In some cases, a single court has exclusive jurisdiction over certain types of claims.

And ever since the Supreme Court's Markman ruling in 1996 finding that claim construction — the interpretation of the words of a patent claim — is a task given over to the judge, it has been more important than ever for judges to get a solid working knowledge of the subject matter of a case.

The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on October 10, 2012, citing that court's subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs» constitutional clCourt for the Southern District of Indiana on October 10, 2012, citing that court's subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs» constitutional clcourt's subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs» constitutional claims.

Over the last 20 - plus years, a series of laws and court cases in Wisconsin have said that a wrongful death medical malpractice claim can only be filed on behalf of a minor child or a spouse.

In two seperate court cases over ten years, the men claimed they did not wish to be spouses of the women, they admitted to having lived in their homes, however because the women chose to remain legally married to their husbands, they did not consider them spouses.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld a decision to strike a defamation claim against a well - known personal injury lawyer in London, Ont., over statements about a case against a local obstetrician and gynecologist.

If a claim arising under federal law is brought by a plaintiff in state court, and if the U.S. District Court would have jurisdiction over the claim if it were brought initially in the U.S. District Court (because, e.g., the defendant is not a state government), then a defendant in the state court case can remove the case to federal ccourt, and if the U.S. District Court would have jurisdiction over the claim if it were brought initially in the U.S. District Court (because, e.g., the defendant is not a state government), then a defendant in the state court case can remove the case to federal cCourt would have jurisdiction over the claim if it were brought initially in the U.S. District Court (because, e.g., the defendant is not a state government), then a defendant in the state court case can remove the case to federal cCourt (because, e.g., the defendant is not a state government), then a defendant in the state court case can remove the case to federal ccourt case can remove the case to federal courtcourt.

On one hand I have read that the Superior Court only hears cases involving claims over $ 25,000, however, I have also read that the the municipal court's jurisdiction only extends to cases cases involving monetary claims, and if a tort does not involve monetary damages, and only injunctive relief and does not fall into a special category (family, probate, etc), then it has Superior Court jurisdicCourt only hears cases involving claims over $ 25,000, however, I have also read that the the municipal court's jurisdiction only extends to cases cases involving monetary claims, and if a tort does not involve monetary damages, and only injunctive relief and does not fall into a special category (family, probate, etc), then it has Superior Court jurisdiccourt's jurisdiction only extends to cases cases involving monetary claims, and if a tort does not involve monetary damages, and only injunctive relief and does not fall into a special category (family, probate, etc), then it has Superior Court jurisdicCourt jurisdiction.

When the government announced in its claims process consultation that it would not raise the limit for personal injury cases in the small claims court, we were delighted with the official recognition that the small claims court is not an appropriate forum for personal injury cases with a value of over # 1,000.

«Victorious Lawyer in Climate Case Still Critical of Plaintiffs» Strategy»: Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire has an article (via The New York Times) that begins, «The top government lawyer who successfully argued a major climate case before the Supreme Court this year has criticized his erstwhile opponents for claiming states should be able to sue polluters over greenhouse gas emissions under federal common law.&raCase Still Critical of Plaintiffs» Strategy»: Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire has an article (via The New York Times) that begins, «The top government lawyer who successfully argued a major climate case before the Supreme Court this year has criticized his erstwhile opponents for claiming states should be able to sue polluters over greenhouse gas emissions under federal common law.&racase before the Supreme Court this year has criticized his erstwhile opponents for claiming states should be able to sue polluters over greenhouse gas emissions under federal common law.»

In a 2015 case involving an attempt by CIBC to claim $ 3 billion in business income deductions, Chief Justice Eugene Rossiter of the Tax Court of Canada refused to allow the bank to claim litigation privilege over 670 documents that had allegedly been misclassified by the third party (not a law firm) to whom CIBC had outsourced its document review.