Sentences with phrase «damages as the trial judge»

Osborne says the case is also interesting from the perspective of damages as the trial judge awarded based on future profits and investment value.

Not exact matches

Netflix's latest documentary, Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press, was often colloquially referred to as the «Hulk Hogan» documentary which led many to believe that the sole focus of the film would center on the wrestler's legal entanglement with Gawker — which ultimately led to the news portal being bankrupted and shuttered after a Florida judge awarded Hogan $ 115 million in punitive damages.

Instead, Apple filed motions last month to appeal Judge Denise Cote's date for the damages portion of the ongoing case — damages which can be as high as 800 + million dollars, if punitive rulings are imposed — on the grounds that they were certain the case would be thrown out once it finishes with its appeal of Cote's guilty ruling, making the damages trial a waste of time and money.

To the fullest extent permitted by law, by your access to the Sites, you agree that: (i) any claim, dispute or cause of action regarding the Sites or these Terms shall be brought individually (NOT AS PART OF A CLASS ACTION) in the federal or state courts of the State of New York, and, such claim / dispute / cause of action will be resolved by a judge and THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL IS HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVED; (ii) you consent to the personal jurisdiction of such courts as the exclusive tribunal for adjudication of any such claim / dispute / cause of action, expressly waiving any right of forum non convenience, change of venue or like right; (iii) your recovery will be limited to actual out - of - pocket costs involved in specifically accessing the Sites (if any) and you expressly waive your right to all other forms of recovery, including by way of example only, punitive, consequential, indirect, incidental, special and exemplary damages as well as attorneys» fees for bringing such claim / dispute / cause of action; and (iv) the court shall apply the law of the State of New York in adjudicating any such claim / dispute / cause of action, except for the choice of law / conflict of law rules of the State of New York (or of any other jurisdiction which would result in the application of the law of any jurisdiction other than the State of New YorkAS PART OF A CLASS ACTION) in the federal or state courts of the State of New York, and, such claim / dispute / cause of action will be resolved by a judge and THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL IS HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVED; (ii) you consent to the personal jurisdiction of such courts as the exclusive tribunal for adjudication of any such claim / dispute / cause of action, expressly waiving any right of forum non convenience, change of venue or like right; (iii) your recovery will be limited to actual out - of - pocket costs involved in specifically accessing the Sites (if any) and you expressly waive your right to all other forms of recovery, including by way of example only, punitive, consequential, indirect, incidental, special and exemplary damages as well as attorneys» fees for bringing such claim / dispute / cause of action; and (iv) the court shall apply the law of the State of New York in adjudicating any such claim / dispute / cause of action, except for the choice of law / conflict of law rules of the State of New York (or of any other jurisdiction which would result in the application of the law of any jurisdiction other than the State of New Yorkas the exclusive tribunal for adjudication of any such claim / dispute / cause of action, expressly waiving any right of forum non convenience, change of venue or like right; (iii) your recovery will be limited to actual out - of - pocket costs involved in specifically accessing the Sites (if any) and you expressly waive your right to all other forms of recovery, including by way of example only, punitive, consequential, indirect, incidental, special and exemplary damages as well as attorneys» fees for bringing such claim / dispute / cause of action; and (iv) the court shall apply the law of the State of New York in adjudicating any such claim / dispute / cause of action, except for the choice of law / conflict of law rules of the State of New York (or of any other jurisdiction which would result in the application of the law of any jurisdiction other than the State of New Yorkas well as attorneys» fees for bringing such claim / dispute / cause of action; and (iv) the court shall apply the law of the State of New York in adjudicating any such claim / dispute / cause of action, except for the choice of law / conflict of law rules of the State of New York (or of any other jurisdiction which would result in the application of the law of any jurisdiction other than the State of New Yorkas attorneys» fees for bringing such claim / dispute / cause of action; and (iv) the court shall apply the law of the State of New York in adjudicating any such claim / dispute / cause of action, except for the choice of law / conflict of law rules of the State of New York (or of any other jurisdiction which would result in the application of the law of any jurisdiction other than the State of New York).

As demonstrated supra, at 424 - 426, by the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, the power of judges to order new trials for excessive damages was well established in American courts.

On Final Appeal In front of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, the plaintiff made essentially the same arguments as below and convinced the court that the trial judge was proper in increasing the amount of the damages award.

The trial judge's findings on the claim for punitive damages undermine the finding of conduct that was sufficiently egregious as to give rise to a claim of aggravated damages.

[Trial judge properly certified as a class, pursuant to G.L. c. 93A, a group of smokers who had purchased Marlboro Lights where the facts to be presented at trial were common to all class members, and where no individual matters of damages would be considered in the cTrial judge properly certified as a class, pursuant to G.L. c. 93A, a group of smokers who had purchased Marlboro Lights where the facts to be presented at trial were common to all class members, and where no individual matters of damages would be considered in the ctrial were common to all class members, and where no individual matters of damages would be considered in the case.]

In the trial judge's view, Mr. Lau's prospects for reemployment were poor, given the damage to his reputation as a result of the employer's grounds for termination:

In your first few years as a Judge Advocate, you might be fully lititgating a criminal trial (a.k.a court martial), defending the U.S. Government against a taxpayer whose house got damaged by falling aircraft parts, or briefing troops on «shoot / don't shoot rules of engagement» and laws of armed conflict.

The court found Potter was entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal as assessed by the trial judge, with the exception that the pension benefits he has already received are not to be deducted from those damages.

The Alberta Court of Appeal had overturned the trial judge's decision and declared that the damage to the building's windows was excluded from coverage, as the damage was «physically or systematically connected» to the work the contractor had performed.

(12) In an action for loss or damage from bodily injury or death arising directly or indirectly from the use or operation of an automobile, a judge shall, on motion made before trial with the consent of the parties or in accordance with an order of a judge who conducts a pre-trial conference, determine for the purpose of subsections (3) and (5) whether, as a result of the use or operation of the automobile, the injured person has died or has sustained,

Intel says that «Judge Posner's exclusion of Motorola's damages experts should be affirmed as a textbook example of proper gate - keeping by a trial judge&raJudge Posner's exclusion of Motorola's damages experts should be affirmed as a textbook example of proper gate - keeping by a trial judge&rajudge».

Because awards are made «once and for all» at the time of trial, judges must «peer into the future» and fix the damages «as best they can».

(3) In an action for loss or damage from bodily injury or death arising directly or indirectly from the use or operation of an automobile, a judge shall, on motion made before trial with the consent of the parties or in accordance with an order of a judge who conducts a pre-trial conference, determine if, as a result of the use or operation of the automobile, the injured person has died or has sustained,

The trial judge interpreted the defects exclusion so as to only exclude those costs of repair that would have remedied the defect immediately prior to the occurrence of the damage, and based on the evidence the costs of implementing proper shoring / framework procedures were nil.

Perhaps a sufficient knowledge of the principles of fundamental justice and the manifold ways in which disputes can be resolved quickly, efficiently and cooperatively, without the delay, expense and acrimony of the trial process, will usurp Judge Judy, Damages and Boston Legal as our paradigms of dispute resolution.

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeal partially upheld a trial judge's decision awarding over $ 70,000 in damages to the purchasers of a home as a result of fraudulent misrepresentations made by the vendors prior to the deal going through.

Agreeing with Evans that to expect him to return to his old job would be unreasonable, the trial judge awarded him $ 100,000 in severance, known as wrongful dismissal damages.

The final portion of this opinion that a three - judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued today contains an interesting discussion of the potential for overlap between a jury's award of damages for emotional distress and what a jury might have awarded had it been advised (as it should have been but was not at the original trial) that an award of punitive damages in favor of the plaintiff was appropriate.

However, it was a short lived victory, as Tercon won its appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada, who reinstated the trial judge's award of nearly $ 3.5 million in damages.

After affirming the trial judge's decision that Mr. Allen was actually terminated on October 14, 2009, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia cited with approval the decision of Bowes v. Goss Power Products Ltd., 2012 ONCA 425, (canvassed by this blog in the post Fix the Duty to Mitigate) in which the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that if an employment contract provides for a fixed severance package there is no duty on the employee to mitigate his damages, and held that as Mr. Allen's employment agreement did not impose a duty to mitigate, the trial judge properly found he was therefore entitled to the balance owing for 15 months» salary and benefits in lieu of notice as damages for breach of contract.

This reduces the overall starting point for the quantification of the aggregate damages award to $ 74.5 million, as opposed to the trial judge's finding of $ 92 million.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the evidence given at trial did not support the trial judge's classification of the Plaintiff as being a «crumbling skull Plaintiff», and further ruled that the trial judge did not adequately account for a reduction of damages in this regard.

As the court interpreted the two reports together, it concluded that the trial judge could have reasonably decided that the reports constituted a good faith effort to summarize the causal relationship between the defendant's alleged failure to comply with the standard of care and Hathcock's injuries and subsequent damages.

As the appellant, if you believe a judge misapplied the law or legal precedent, improperly excluded favorable evidence or testimony, improperly admitted damaging evidence or testimony, allowed procedural errors to go forward at trial, or made other errors during the process of your case, I will examine the facts and provide you with an objective legal opinion before proceeding with the appeal.

The trial judge concluded unjust enrichment, used the value received and value survived methods to award damages of about 1/4 of the appellants» net estate ($ 190,000), and set aside the trust agreement as a fraudulent conveyance.

Accordingly, the judge granted the motion for summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages and left the plaintiff's negligence claim as the sole remaining issue for trial.

On the issue of damages, the court upheld the trial judge's finding that the franchisee failed to mitigate his damages, and as a result, upheld the dismissal of the franchisee's action.

Therefore, the figure of # 1,100 that was awarded in damages on account of Mr Jackson's claim by the original trial judge, was not considered excessive as it accounted for the distress and discomfort of the whole family.

It ruled that the trial judge based her conclusions on an alternative scenario of liability and damages that she developed as opposed to the allegations in the pleadings.

The application judge found that the two - member firm partnership had been dissolved and declared the restrictive covenant unenforceable as a penalty, but directed a trial of an issue to determine the damages payable by the appellant as a result of a breach of the portion of the portion of the covenant he found valid and severable — the withdrawal having triggered a clause in the agreement which called for the reduction of the withdrawing partner's capital account «by 500 % of the average fees billed by the firm to clients who transfer to the withdrawing partner within 24... Read More

The application judge found that the two - member firm partnership had been dissolved and declared the restrictive covenant unenforceable as a penalty, but directed a trial of an issue to determine the damages payable by the appellant as a result of a breach of the portion of the portion of the covenant he found valid and severable — the withdrawal having triggered a clause in the agreement which called for the reduction of the withdrawing partner's capital account «by 500 % of the average fees billed by the firm to clients who transfer to the withdrawing partner within 24 months of the withdrawal date».

As Ms. Label argued, it was a contradiction in terms, and legal error, for the trial judge to state that M will be damaged by continuing in her mother's custody, but to order that she remain in exactly that situation.

As such, the Trial Judge awards Al Boom damages of $ 415,000 US for the lost opportunity to utilize the missing volume of lumber, and $ 1,317,000 US for harmed business relationships with customers.

Being as kind as possible to the reasoning, the Court adopts a «Goldilocks» approach: the amount of punitive damages awarded by the trial judge ($ 1,000,000) was «too high», the amount awarded by the Court of Appeal ($ 250,000) was too low because it «fails to fully reflect the gravity of the conduct and the need to deter others», so $ 500,000 is perfect.

It follows that the evidence of vehicle damage was relevant on this issue and the trial judge did not err in instructing the jury that they could use it as circumstantial evidence.

The trial judge acknowledged that M's relationship with Ms.. A may be damaged if M returned to her father, and that this was as a result of Ms.. A.

The facts here were not particularly attractive for the car dealer, ultimately leading the trial judge to award about $ 38,500 in compensatory damages / penalties to car purchaser, rescind the car purchase, and entering a limited permanent injunction against car dealer as to certain advertising practices.

«But Mr Straw [Justice Secterary Jack Straw] has indicated to judges that he does not favour allowing cameras into jury trials — a move that judges widely oppose because they perceive it as a step towards American - style justice that could damage the nature of court proceedings».

The trial judge's reasons confirm that he appreciated the purposes of punitive damages, their exceptional nature, the need to be fair to both sides, and the basis for Rabinowitz's contention at trial that any award of punitive damages as against him should be limited to $ 25,000 to $ 50,000.

The trial judge considered the controlling principles for the awarding of general compensatory damages in an internet defamation case, and applied them to the facts as he found them.

As a result of the reduction in the interest rate the interest on his general damages should have been $ 44,583 and not the $ 89,167 awarded by the trial judge.

The trial judge dismissed the claim for specific performance but awarded $ 2 million damages calculated as loss of a 60 % chance to make profit.

The Benchbook is used by Mass. judges as an official «playbook» and answers every possible question about jury trials, including attorney - conducted voir dire, mentioning damages in closing argument, juror notebooks, jury questionnaires, peremptory challenges, jury instructions, and much more.

After a 26 - day quantum trial, the judge assessed damages at $ 8,000,000, which represented the fall in the value of the units as of the date of closing.

In such cases, it is up to the judge in the Family Part of the Superior Court of New Jersey to determine whether the injury inflicted rises to such a high level that a jury trial should be allowed as requested by the victim spouse seeking monetary damages from the other spouse.

This was based on information that the increase in advertising and promotion for the first two years of the agreement was $ 72,000, and the trial judge ruled that 50 per cent of the additional costs were recoverable as damages.