Sentences with phrase «claims court case where»

She believed that if she lost a small claims court case where she was the plaintiff, she would end up in jail.

Not exact matches

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.»

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.

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.

(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.

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 Ministry of Justice is consulting on proposals that would increase the number of disputed compensation cases heard by small claims courts — where claimants have to pay their own legal fees even if they win.

Mr Akarcay's legal team took the case to the High Court, where they claimed the passing of evidence and assistance to Turkish Cyprus was illegal.

He's given this opinion in court on several occasions as an expert witness in cases where a lawyer of a defendant caught drink - driving has claimed that their client has undiagnosed auto - brewery syndrome.

As JBentley points out, there have been court cases where domestic partners contributing to household expenses while the other partner paid the mortgage have later been able to claim that this implied joint ownership.

If your claim is more than your province's limit for small claims, then your case goes to Superior Court where a lawyer will likely represent you.

If you go to a random small claims court on any given day, you will witness at least a few cases where one person says, «it was a gift!»

In California, where the lawsuits seek billions of dollars to pay for mitigation measures, such as sea walls to protect coastal property, the oil and gas companies responded by seeking to move the cases to federal courts, where nuisance claims are less likely to succeed.

The claimant might have been given hope by another fairly recent case, Delaney v Pickett [2011] EWCA Civ 1532, [2011] All ER (D) 201 (Dec), where the Court of Appeal held that an injured passenger could nevertheless claim despite the fact that the sole purpose of the journey was to transport commercially grown cannabis plants.

Sorochan claims that social covenant is of the same «constitutional importance as promises by the representatives of government to the First Nations» where court cases evoked the legal doctrine of «honour of the Crown» which asserts that Canada is honour bound to carry out the promises of the social covenant.

In Denton v Workers Compensation Board, the Court decided that the responsibility is on the litigant wanting to make a Charter claim to have made it where such an argument is first available — with the first decision - maker that touches their case.

These are three recent examples of cases where Ontario courts have ruled in favour of individuals who claim they had been defamed by unproven allegations of sexual assault.

In relation to trade union funding of cases the inadequacy of the Scottish regime is highlighted in chapter 14 of the Scottish Courts Review at para 97 «it is understood that some trade unions have special arrangements that do not fit the normal model for speculative fee agreements, in that success fees are not charged where the claim is successful and neither the defenders nor the pursuer's legal costs are charged to the pursuer if he is unsuccessful, these being met either by the union itself or the solicitors».

As usual, Medicare does not surf court dockets to find cases where Medicare's reimbursement rights are at stake; it is entirely up to the beneficiary and / or the beneficiary's attorney to report the claim to Medicare.

There have also been several recent cases in California where courts have upheld personal injury claims against landlords who have allowed a tenant to have a dangerous dog on premises.

This case is worth reading for anyone advancing an ICBC claim where the issue of causation of a disc bulge is at issue to see the types of competing positions that can be advanced by the doctors at trial along with the analysis that a court can engage in to navigate the waters of expert opinions.

In cases where there are wills variation claims, executors are meant to be a neutral party and assist the Courts with any information regarding assets and administration of the Estate.

The Wall Street Journal - February 11, 1998 The Wall Street Journal reported on this case in which I successfully represented a shipping company, which defeated the narrow interests of insurance defense attorneys, in a lawsuit where attorneys for U.S. insurance companies were seeking to compel all foreign shipping companies to litigate claims, regarding damages to goods shipped by sea, in U.S. Courts, regardless of where the damage occurred, or the home country of the ship involved or of its owners.

However, if it is just more of an issue on principle, these cases can always be fought in small claims court where the award of damages would be a lot lower.

The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed an appeal, in a case that required the court to consider whether a claim to damages against the UK Motor Insurers» Bureau was to be determined in accordance with English or Greek law, where the respondent had been injured by an uninsured driver while on holiday in GrCourt has unanimously allowed an appeal, in a case that required the court to consider whether a claim to damages against the UK Motor Insurers» Bureau was to be determined in accordance with English or Greek law, where the respondent had been injured by an uninsured driver while on holiday in Grcourt to consider whether a claim to damages against the UK Motor Insurers» Bureau was to be determined in accordance with English or Greek law, where the respondent had been injured by an uninsured driver while on holiday in Greece.

Yes, in the case of Allen v. Allen, Record No: 0562-16-4 (Feb. 2017), where the Virginia Court of Appeals ruled wife waived her privilege by claiming to be a good and faithful wife and husband's stock purchase was treated as a deferred compensation plan.

Test Cases In a Group Litigation where there are many claimants like yourself, it is unworkable for the court to hear and consider each individual claim.

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.

The claim had not been compromised as the judge had stated and so the judge had not been bound by BCT Software Solutions Ltd v C Brewer & Sons Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 393, [2003] All ER (D) 196 (Jul)-- where parties have settled on all issues save costs before a trial or where a trial is incomplete, the court should not, save in a reasonably obvious case, embark on making an order for costs because the court will have no proper basis of agreed or determined facts upon which to base its decision.

In PAP and non-PAP cases: notice of the existence of a funding arrangement should be communicated to all other parties as soon as possible; if proceedings are started for limitation reasons with bad pre-action manners, the parties should seek to agree to apply to the court for a stay while they take steps to comply; and where proceedings are started, the claimant should state in the claim form or particulars of claim whether they have complied with the PD and any relevant PAP.

The Act applies in personal injury cases where the court finds that the claimant is entitled to damages but, upon an application by the defendant, the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant has been «fundamentally dishonest» in relation to the primary claim or a related claim.

The court rehearsed a consistent line of earlier rulings including Churchill v Wilkinson and Evans Case C - 442 / 10, [2013] 1 W L R1776 and confirmed that member states have no discretion to permit motor insurers to rely on statutory provisions or contractual clauses to enable them to avoid their liability to meet third party claims, save where expressly permitted by the Motor Insurance Directives.

According to a recent Superior Court decision, it is a business agreement.2 This case did not involve a LAWPRO claim, but it is a warning to practitioners that disability insurers are free to contract out of the LA 2002 where a company or an association is a policyholder, even though the policy is for the benefit of the company's or association's employees or members.

While in most accident cases there is at least one person (the injured party) who saw what happened, sometimes in personal injury claims the court finds itself in a situation where it requires to make a decision without any eye witnesses to the crucial facts.

Finally, although the judiciary strives to uphold claims to privilege, recent case law (in particular RBS Rights Issue Litigation, Re [2016] EWCH 3161 (Ch)-RRB- demonstrates the significant constraints they are operating in to meet the requirements of the controversial Court of Appeal decision in Three Rivers District Council (No 5)[2003] EWCA Civ 474, [2003] All ER (D) 59 (Apr)(TR5) where, among other things, «client» was narrowly defined.

Keep in mind, however, that small claims court only governs claims of $ 6,000 or less, and only in cases where the Plaintiff has elected to file a suit using small claims court procedures.

Such a case may start from Ukraine in terms of negotiations, then proceed judicially in Greece, security measures (ship arrest) may be taken in Romania; when it comes to enforcement of the judgement, and a Russian insurer is involved refusing to pay under LOI issued for release of the ship in Romania, you have to initiate enforcement proceedings in Russia, whereas the said vessel may have been arrested by the claimants for the second time in Bangladesh, on the same claim against the new ship owner, where the court decides that it will hear the case against the latter on the merits.

Putting aside that no case has ever claimed that contribution applies only to but - for causes — good thing because there's many a defendant held liable who received contribution where the conduct wasn't a but - for cause and there's no reason to read any of the apportionment statutes that way — I suppose the conclusion that contribution is limited to but - for causation does follow if the Court believes that the only way there can ever be factual causation is under the but - for test.

In this case, however, the Court is asked to determine whether the Ontario courts have jurisdiction to recognize and enforce an Ecuadorian judgment where the foreign judgment debtor, Chevron Corporation («Chevron»), claims to have no connection with the province, whether through assets or otherwise.

David is generally instructed in high profile and heavyweight cases in the High Court, frequently involving conspiracy and economic torts, unlawful competition, team moves, the protection of confidential information, post-termination restraints, wrongful termination / expulsion, carried interest and bonus disputes (where he has acted in most of the landmark decisions such as Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald, Keen v Commerzbank and Anar v Dresdner Kleinwort), as well as claims arising in a regulatory context which raise important reputational issues, and whistleblowing and discrimination claims in the Employment Tribunal.

The court notes that «AVM does not cite to a single case where any court permitted a damages claim to be based on a single settlement agreement for a comparable technology.»

The report draws on the expertise of INCLO's members across five continents in analyzing cases where religion and equality claims have competed in the courts.

So this is not a garden variety negligence case of legal malpractice where the lawyer blew the statute of limitations or missed a key court date; this attorney knew his strategy did not have the «99 % chance» of success he claimed to his clients, yet he pursued it exclusively and his clients relied entirely upon his advice.

Though many individuals handled legal matters without lawyers, particularly in small claims court, what's really changed, notes the article, is the increase in family law and domestic cases where lawyers aren't involved.

(iv) Where the court is not satisfied on the basis of the affidavit and the other evidence before it that the right to withhold inspection is established, it may: (a) conclude that the evidence does not establish a legal right to withhold inspection and order inspection; (b) order a further affidavit to deal with matters which the earlier affidavit does not cover or on which it is unsatisfactory; (c) inspect the documents (inspection should be a solution of last resort and should not be undertaken unless there is credible evidence that those claiming privilege have either misunderstood their duty, or are not to be trusted with the decision making, or there is no reasonably practical alternative); or (d) order crossexamination of a person who has sworn an affidavit (however, cross-examination may not be ordered in the case of an affidavit of documents.

The public trust doctrine has not been widely discussed in Canadian case law with the only significant mention being by the Supreme Court of Canada in British Columbia v. Canadian Forest Products Ltd., 2004 SCC 38 at para. 74 where Binnie J. acknowledged that «The notion that there are public rights in the environment that reside in the Crown has deep roots in the common law» (however, the majority decision ultimately took a conservative approach to not allow the Crown to succeed in a general claim for damages for «environmental loss» [caused by a negligently undetected controlled burn of slashing and other waste by a logging company] in the absence of a statutory scheme permitting such a claim).

Neil Rose further explains how this pilot project works: ``... the three stages of the online court would be: [One] An automated online triage stage designed to help LiPs articulate their claim in a form which the court can resolve, and to upload their key documents and evidence; [Two] A conciliation stage, handled by a case officer; and [Three], a determination stage, where those disputed cases which can not be settled are determined by a judge, by whichever of a face - to - face trial, video or telephone hearing or determination on the documents is the most appropriate.»

This High Court case serves as a warning that great care should now be taken in the drafting of a termination notice, where a contractual right to terminate has accrued, but there is also (or might be) a common law right to terminate for repudiatory breach, so as to ensure that any common law damages claim is preserved.

In Ernst the Court of Appeal does not cite any of these Alberta cases, but rather points to the 2011 Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, 2011 SCC 42, where at paras 17 to 26 the Supreme Court sets out the test to be met for a motion to strike claims for the failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action.