Sentences with phrase «claims court cases against»

I want to check up on a second hand car dealer in the UK to see if they've had any small claims court cases against them (and preferably the result of these cases).

Not exact matches

Farrow also claims that the only reason why the molestation case against Allen didn't go to court, though the prosecutor had «probable cause» to prosecute Allen, was due to «the fragility of the child victim.»

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 work.

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.

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 context.

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 process).

In one case, Denenberg allegedly prepared a «fake order» in which the court granted his client a motion for summary judgment, dismissing a claim against it with prejudice, the suit said.

Any day now the Supreme Court will rule on a case which claims that the policy discriminates against the disabled.

This led to a number of High Court cases, notably against Surrey County Council in 2000, with parents claiming that their children had been discriminated against.

(c) And also for * submissions based on the assertion that Mr. Woyome had no contract with the Government of Ghana * and therefore had no valid claims against the Government be determined by the High Court, and not by this Court (the Supreme Court), since they do not involve, according to the relevant case law, the interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution and do not therefore fall within the ambit of the Court's original jurisdiction under Article 130 (1) of the 1992 Constitution.

In a judgment dismissing the claim, Justice Rilwan Aikawa held that following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Attorney General of Ondo State vs Attorney General of the Federation and 36 Others (2002), that ICPC had a statutory duty to investigate allegations of corrupt practices made against any person or authority in Nigeria and that neither the claimants nor the court has the discretion to stop a statutory agency of government from performing its duCourt in the case of Attorney General of Ondo State vs Attorney General of the Federation and 36 Others (2002), that ICPC had a statutory duty to investigate allegations of corrupt practices made against any person or authority in Nigeria and that neither the claimants nor the court has the discretion to stop a statutory agency of government from performing its ducourt has the discretion to stop a statutory agency of government from performing its duties.

A defense attorney claimed in court Thursday that the federal government's bribery case against Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez (N.J.) and a Florida doctor is an «attack» on Hispanic Americans.

An Albany County Court judge Monday turned down a motion to dismiss a corruption case against State Sen. Robert Ortt, R - North Tonawanda, on a claim that he was improperly denied a chance to speak before an Albany County grand jury on March 23.

The study, which analyzed 210 lawsuits involving First Amendment claims by professors and college instructors against public colleges and universities from 1964 - 2014, found that educational institutions won more than 73 percent of cases in federal and state courts.

In recent months similar cases have been dismissed in courts in California and Texas against MySpace.com and Craiglist.com using the Communications Decency Act, a law which protects forum providers on the Internet against legal claims arising from posts made by third parties.

The unanimous decision, which marked the first time the high court had heard a case on the subject, clears the way for Laramie County School District No. 1 to pursue its $ 200,000 negligence and breach - of - contract claim against the architects of a school that began to crumble less than 10 years after it was built.

Small claims courts in Broward and Palm Beach counties are reporting a spike in the number of cases against debtors, who typically owe between $ 2,000 to $ 4,000.

A judge recently ruled against the company in one case, saying Warren «fraudulently induced» the family into a contract, making misrepresentations about the dog's abilities, which the court record claimed should instinctively be ready to alert.

My summary of the case is: A trial judge — he wasn't named in the Court of Appeal but his name can easily be discovered — had dismissed plaintiff's claim against the defendant bank and a solicitor for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.

First Circuit Court of Appeals Allows c. 93A Case to Proceed Against Insurance Company; Previous State Suit did not bar Claim:: Massachusetts Insurance Litigation Lawyer Breakstone, White & Gluck

First Circuit Court of Appeals Allows c. 93A Case to Proceed Against Insurance Company; Previous State Suit did not bar Claim

On the heels of three cases involving military members injured «off of the battlefield,» the United States Supreme Court passed the Feres Doctrine in 1950, making these individuals and their families unable to bring a claim against the federal government for such.

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.

Because neither party obtained a monetary recovery, the claims against trustee were not dismissed, and plaintiff obtained an equitable judgment against trustee, the case — with respect to routine costs — fell within the catch - all provision of CCP § 1032 (a)(4) which allows the trial court discretion to determine the prevailing party by comparing the relief sought with that obtained, along with the parties» litigation objectives.

As with any personal injury claim under English Jurisdiction, in most cases, you have three years from the date of an accident to have either settled a claim with the tour operator or to have issued court proceedings against them.

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.

Be that as it may, distress matters because a recent court case (Vidal Hall — v - Google) held that only distress rather than financial damage was needed to open up a claim against a data controller for compensation under the Data Protection Act (DPA) and for the time being this ruling stands.»

Against that background, Apple only asked for 60 cents per device from Motorola (which still seemed too much for Judge Posner, though not for the appeals court), less than one - twentieth of its per - unit damages demand from Samsung in the current case, in which Apple pursued a broader claim construction that enabled it to claim ownership of the whole feature as opposed to a particular internal architecture that can be avoided.

His recent cases include defending the former President and majority shareholder of VAB Bank against charges of contempt of court (sole counsel); acting for Mercuria Energy Trading in its successful defence of a US$ 270 million claim by Citibank in one of the biggest High Court banking trials of 2014, acting for the Claimant in an on - going US$ 830 million fraud claim in the Commercial Court (Russian banking sector), a US$ 800 million joint venture dispute in the BVI and acting as junior counsel to the Claimants in Hulley & ocourt (sole counsel); acting for Mercuria Energy Trading in its successful defence of a US$ 270 million claim by Citibank in one of the biggest High Court banking trials of 2014, acting for the Claimant in an on - going US$ 830 million fraud claim in the Commercial Court (Russian banking sector), a US$ 800 million joint venture dispute in the BVI and acting as junior counsel to the Claimants in Hulley & oCourt banking trials of 2014, acting for the Claimant in an on - going US$ 830 million fraud claim in the Commercial Court (Russian banking sector), a US$ 800 million joint venture dispute in the BVI and acting as junior counsel to the Claimants in Hulley & oCourt (Russian banking sector), a US$ 800 million joint venture dispute in the BVI and acting as junior counsel to the Claimants in Hulley & ors v.

Small claims court allows you to file a case against a defendant for monetary losses.

The decision in Vinod Chopra Films Private Limited et al. v. John Doe 2010 FC 387 by Hughes, J. concerns a review of a «rolling» Anton Piller order granted by the Federal Court of Canada in a copyright infringement case to an Indian film production company and its Canadian licensee against various un-named persons who (according to the claim) «deal in counterfeit video recordings.»

«After all, the Supreme Court, in the 2004 Rasul decision, had firmly rejected the Bush administration's claim that U.S. courts did not have jurisdiction to hear cases against the Guantanamo detainees.»

It should cost you $ 15 + time - unless you loose quite badly - in which case its conceivable the court could award costs against you (I don't know if this is true of the small claims court in NY).

A court in Massachusetts last month refused to dismiss a case brought by the National Association of the Deaf against Netflix, claiming that Netflix is required by the Americans with Disabilities Act to provide closed - captioning on all its products, including streaming of broadcasts.

He later launched his claim against the law society after the New Brunswick Court of Appeal ordered a new trial in his case.

This case follows on from the recent judgment in Sanum Investments Ltd v Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic [2016] SGCA 57, in which the Singapore Court of Appeal found that an investor - State arbitral tribunal did have jurisdiction to hear claims against the Government of Laos.

The representative of the appellant argues that the judgment of the original court which acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Japanese court in an action of the appellee who is a Japanese national claiming divorce in the present case against the appellant who has a nationality of the German Democratic Republic is against the law.

In the unusual bonus claim case of Herbert v JP Morgan (2012), he successfully defended the investment bank against a High Court, Queen's Bench Division claim by an banker for a bonus based on an alleged negligent misrepresentation during the recruitment process.

The high court is also unimpressed with the fact that the drug giving rise to the product liability was distributed by a California company, presumably because the cause of action in question in the case was brought against the manufacturer as a strict liability defective product claim, rather than as a claim against a seller of the product arising from a warranty that the product was free of defects arising under the Uniform Commercial Code or an express warranty.

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.

In a fifth case the Supreme Court issued its final judgment on a matter that had already been sent to Luxembourg for preliminary rulings on two occasions; it concerned the limitation period applying to claims brought against producers of goods (O'Byrne v Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd [2010] UKHL 23).

While there are a number of other issues involved in this complex case, including claims that the judgment was obtained by fraud, the facts before the Court were simple: there was a final judgment in Ecuador against Chevron for US$ 9.51 billion.

The Courts hear cases in which victims claim damages against health care practitioners for injuries suffered and decide the amount of damages, if any, that should be paid.

In this groundbreaking case, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court correctly dismissed a legal malpractice suit against the attorney and his law firm because the underlying product liability claim plaintiffs» asserted should have been pursued was statutorily preempted under the federal Medical Device Act («MDA&raqCourt of Appeals ruled that the trial court correctly dismissed a legal malpractice suit against the attorney and his law firm because the underlying product liability claim plaintiffs» asserted should have been pursued was statutorily preempted under the federal Medical Device Act («MDA&raqcourt correctly dismissed a legal malpractice suit against the attorney and his law firm because the underlying product liability claim plaintiffs» asserted should have been pursued was statutorily preempted under the federal Medical Device Act («MDA»).

In this case, the court summarily dismissed a multi-million dollar claim against two lawyers.

Judge Newman filed a separate dissent, pointing out that all amicus briefs submitted in the case argued against different standards in PTAB and district court proceedings, stressing the concern that different claim constructions would lead to uncertainty a lack of predictability in patent rights.

Successfully defended various companies and municipalities against discrimination claims filed in federal courts and state and federal administrative agencies, including sexual harassment, race discrimination, age discrimination, gender discrimination, national origin harassment, Americans with Disabilities Act discrimination, and retaliation cases.

The case argued before before the high court this week, Altria Group v. Good, raises the question of whether smokers» state - law claims against tobacco giant Phillip Morris are preempted by federal law.

Whereas in Y and Z, [33] the Court in September 2012 ruled against forced modification in a case involving religious persecution of those of Ahmadi faith in Pakistan, this must also apply to a sexual identity claim.