Sentences with phrase «claims court cases at»

Wyoming does have an exception to the general rule for small claims court cases at Wyoming Statutes § 1-21-202 (b), which states:

Not exact matches

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).

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.

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 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.

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.

The Dispatch Editor said he never bothered to follow up on the case until last year when the informant denied claims by the police at the court that their investigations unearth the evil plot to end the life of mogul.

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.

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

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 claimed.

Instead of honoring this agreement, Innoson filed a new case at the Federal High Court, Awka claiming that the bank had debited his account with N559, 374,072.09, the exact sum that the bag had forgiven him in default charges.

Upon resuming hearing of the case at a Magistrate Court in Abuja today, two sets of lawyers, who claimed to be representing Mr. Kanu announced appearance.

«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.

Debunking claims that his corruption case at the court has thawed since he started campaigning for President Muhammadu Buhari's re-election, a former governor of Abia state...

Donald Trump will have to testify in court in a case in which a woman claims she was raped by him at a party in 1994.

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.

In deciding these cases, courts have exposed the claims of charter schools as being at odds with the nature and purpose of the constitutional right to an adequate education.

Since Susan and Brendan's claim was less than $ 25,000, they paid $ 200 to start a case at small claims court.

In 2014 the UK Court of Appeal ruled in the Dawson v Thomson case that you can claim for flights going back at least six years in England and Wales.

While the case outlined above isn't binding as it was heard at a county court, it's still worth making a claim and citing it as an example.

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!»

The problem arises when the case settles at the doors of the court and under the old r 45.16, such case law as there was indicated that if the trial had not actually begun, then the higher success fee could not be claimed.

It might be that our lawyers are unable to help you file a vaginal mesh claim if your case is not strong enough to tale to court, but it is still absolutely essential that you contact our vaginal mesh claim lawyers at Ketchmark and McCreight, P.C. to find out exactly what kinds of options are available to you as soon as possible.

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».

She thus advises and assists companies at all stages of the dispute and maintains an important activity in employment - related litigation before local courts, including cases alleging discrimination, whistleblower claims and non-compete violations.

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.

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.

The policy at issue in this case, was crafted in such a way that in order to engage the insurer's duty to defend, it required the communication, during the policy period, by a third party, of an intention to hold the Jesuits responsible for damages.36 In this case, it was accepted by the parties, that if the claims were made within the temporal limits of the Policy, the duty to defend would have been engaged as the claims allege injuries that would fall within the policy.37 In fact the Court found one of the claims was made within the policy period and therefore did trigger the insurer's duty to defend.38 The rest of the claims however were found not to have been communicated during the policy period and, as a result, the insurer did not have a duty to defend the actions.39 The determination of whether a policy will be «claims - made» or «occurrence based» will depend on many factors.

They will probably be used to draft the papers that will be lodged at Court if proceedings are issued, (called the Particulars of Claim), and if the case goes to trial a barrister will present your case to the Judge.

In B v B [2007] EWHC 789 (Fam), [2007] All ER (D) 144 (Mar) Mrs Justice Baron held that the «developing needs of [a] child» and the «provision of future housing for [her] is something that merits proper investigation» by the court; and that accordingly a claim by the mother should not be struck out in limine (at the outset of the case).

In 1985 another case came before the courts regarding the trust of an individual who had been badly injured and rendered «mentally incompetent» in the Halifax Explosion, at this point the individual was around 68 years old and living in a facility which claimed that the trust, which had been set up by his father after his injuries in the explosion, should be paying his fees for the facility.

If the initial complaint or other earlier filings had contained a claim for punitive damages, or even an allegation that the defendants acted maliciously, willfully, recklessly, wantonly, fraudulently, or in bad faith, the Court would have likely allowed the punitive damages issue to be heard by the jury, and the plaintiff may have received a larger award at the conclusion of the case.

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.

It was also argued by Suremime in reliance on CPR 24.2 that the court should not preclude a new claim being brought by way of an amendment if there is a compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial.

In two conjoined cases, (Essop and Naeem) the Supreme Court considered whether a claimant in an indirect discrimination claim has to prove the reason why a PCP puts (or would put) an affected group at a particular disadvantage, and whether the reason has to relate to the protected characteristic.

Some people are unaware that they must file their accident claims in court or settle with the insurance company within a specific amount of time or their case expires, ending any chance at receiving compensation.

These expenses, which typically include Court Registry fees, administration costs, the cost of obtaining medical evidence or any other evidence necessary to advance your case, and the cost of experts» reports, are financed by your MacIsaac & Company lawyer, and to paid back to him or her at the conclusion of your claim.

For example, if a person is 16 at the time of the accident, they would have two years from the date of their 18th birthday to either file their case with the appropriate court or settle their claim.

49... Although I agree... that mental injury may be compensable in some form at international law, neither the intervener nor any other party has established that a peremptory norm of international law has now come into existence which would completely oust the doctrine of state immunity and allow domestic courts to entertain claims in the circumstances of this case.

While statements or admissions made in the course of patent prosecution shall not be used for the purpose of interpreting a claim, this is not what the Court is called upon to do in the case at bar.

These include: United States v. Resendiz - Ponce, which presents the question whether the omission of an element from a federal indictment can constitute harmless error (9th Circuit says no); Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., on whether a provider of pay phone services can sue a long distance carrier for alleged violations of the Federal Communications Commission's regulations concerning compensation for coinless pay phone calls (9th Circuit says yes); Cunningham v. California, a sentencing case involving whether whether California's Determinate Sentencing Law violates the 6th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution by permitting California state court judges at sentencing to impose enhanced sentenced based on their determination of facts neither found by the jury nor admitted by the defendant; and Carey v. Musladin, reviewing the 9th Circuit's decision to overturn a murder conviction of a defendant who claimed he was denied a fair trial because the victim's relatives appeared in court wearing buttons with the deceased's picture on them.

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).

We enjoy being in court, but are also dedicated to early development of case strategies to leverage favorable resolutions at the claim construction and summary judgment stages, when that best suits client objectives.

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.

In light of these observations, the Appeal Court, by balancing the different protected interests, ruled that, by refusing, in the specific context of the case and without reasonable cause, to accept the doctor's request for anonymisation, although this request was part of a legitimate claim of right to be forgotten, and did not constitute a disproportionate interference in the freedom of expression of the press, the editor was at fault within the meaning of Article 1382 of the Civil Code and caused prejudice to the doctor.

One additional consideration here — the case reminds me of the need to develop the facts underlying any such claim at the district court.

In that case, at first instance and on appeal the court held that the party who had terminated a contract for a bad reason and ceased performing leading the other party to terminate for repudiation could not then claim damages when it, subsequently, discovered other grounds which, if it had known about them, would have entitled it to terminate.

This decision made in respect of a failure of lawyers to file a costs» budget — the opportunity to claim costs was effectively lost at the outset of the litigation by the failure to submit the costs» budget — is the touchstone for legal advisers and their clients in understanding the attitude of the courts to failure by a party to adhere strictly and accurately to the requirements of case management set out in the rules, practice directions, and the tailored orders of the court in the individual case.

If you are unsure about how to formulate your claim and believe that this may have a detrimental impact on your case, it may be beneficial to seek legal advice before filing the document at court, as the First Defendant discovered to his detriment in Jones v Longley.