Sentences with phrase «defendant against allegations»

Not exact matches

As a senator, Sessions criticized the Justice Department in 2009 for dismissing three defendants from a voting rights lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party after allegations of voter intimidation outside a Philadelphia polling place.

Although the EFCC in two separate letters to the Federal Government through the Secretary to the Government of the Federation had in 2015 and 2016 cleared Umar of any wrongdoing in the alleged N10 million bribery allegation made against him by a defendant, Rasheed Taiwo Owolabi standing trial before him on false asset declaration.

«I am passionately urging my lord to dismiss this application and call on the defendant to explain the allegations that we have proved against him.

In describing prosecutors» case against their defendants — including Buffalo businessman Louis Ciminelli and former SUNY Polytechnic Institute President Alain Kaloyeros — the team of lawyers wrote of the government's «untenable» legal theory, «meager allegations,» and «ill - conceived and improper interpretation of the law.»

The court held that the Plaintiff has made more than sufficient references to the specific allegations, the dates and times were made plus the specific radio / media platforms on which the allegations were made by Defendants against the Plaintiff.

The defendant in the suit revealed that the «the Applicant was deported from Ghana on the said morning of 1st June 2017 without any notice to him or being offered the opportunity to be heard on the allegation of forgery leveled against him.»

The plaintiff, in its originating summons stated that «the allegations made against the 1st and 2nd defendants (Amaechi and Onu) by the two Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria... are grievous enough to warrant their arrest, investigation and prosecution by the 3rd and 4th defendants (DSS and EFCC).»

«However, at this stage of the litigation, accepting plaintiffs» allegations as true, plaintiffs have, albeit barely, stated a plausible equal protection claim against defendant Antonacci.»

The Federal Government also levelled similar allegations as well as acceptance of payments unauthorised by law from counts 10 to 14 against the defendants with respect to a cumulative sum of N1, 970,662,130.00.

Noting that the defendants argue the complaint against them «contains no independent allegations of a direct agreement to raise the price of eBooks,» Judge Cote penned this simple, declarative sentence: «The defendants are incorrect.»

The case involves separate allegations against two separate sets of defendants (Rand Simberg / CEI and Mark Steyn / NRO).

More specifically, the Court found that the defendants failed to properly investigate the allegations made against the plaintiff, and published them knowing them to be false.

The defendant's response must include what portions of the complaint, if any, the defendant admits to, what specifically the defendant contests, what defenses the defendant may have to any of the allegations made in the complaint, and whether the defendant has claims against the plaintiff or any other party.

Notable examples include acting for accountants in long - running litigation arising out of a failed tax avoidance scheme; acting for the developer and manufacturer of an offshore drilling system following an accident in operation; representing one of the Defendants in Novoship v Mikhaylyuk & Others, concerning allegations of bribery and secret profits; appearing in a substantial LCIA arbitration about the theft of oil stocks in East Africa;, successfully representing a broker in litigation against a former client under a futures brokerage contract in Sucden v Fluxo - Cane [2010] 2 CLC 216; and The «Ekha» [2011] 1 All ER Comm 1077, long - running litigation in the Commercial Court and Court of Appeal about an offshore drilling contract.

The court is also willing to compensate successful defendants for the full cost of defending against meritless allegations.

In addition, the defendant may raise any defenses he or she may have to the allegations as well as any injury claims the defendant may have against the plaintiff.

The fervor with which they pursue their claim (often their life's sole focus, often misconceived, and often containing vexatious and extreme allegations against your client), and their lack of objectivity, significantly increase the costs of litigation for the defendant...» (Layperson vs. Lawyer: Dealing with Unrepresented Litigants http://www.cle.bc.ca/onlinestore/productdetails.aspx?cid=1039) Hmmm... sound familiar?

I see there is a recent 304 paragraph decision in B.C. — Newman et al v. Halstead et al, 2006 BCSC 65 — in which the court awarded damages totalling $ 681,000 against an individual defendant (who did not appear at the trial, hence there was no defence per se) for her liability in making defamatory statements on her website, chat rooms and email about various teachers in which she made allegations of misconduct and allegations that the School Board mishandled or covered up this activity.

This is not the first domain - related allegation against Kenzie, the defendant in the Gioconda Law Group case.

Bryan Cave represented the defendant, Clarion Corporation of America, against allegation of infringement in the Eastern District of New York.

Defendants argue that this court should strike the two sentencing allegations for three reasons: 1) The allegations are prejudicial surplusage; 2) The government does not have statutory authority to include sentencing allegations in an indictment; and 3) Presenting sentencing allegations to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt to increase defendants» sentences violates the constitutional principles of separation of powers and the prohibition against the legislative branch delegating its powers to the executiDefendants argue that this court should strike the two sentencing allegations for three reasons: 1) The allegations are prejudicial surplusage; 2) The government does not have statutory authority to include sentencing allegations in an indictment; and 3) Presenting sentencing allegations to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt to increase defendants» sentences violates the constitutional principles of separation of powers and the prohibition against the legislative branch delegating its powers to the executidefendants» sentences violates the constitutional principles of separation of powers and the prohibition against the legislative branch delegating its powers to the executive branch.

It is alleged by the defendant in error in this case that the plea to the jurisdiction was a sufficient plea; that it shows, on inspection of its allegations, confessed by the demurrer, that the plaintiff was not a citizen of the State of Missouri; that, upon this record, it must appear to this court that the case was not within the judicial power of the United States as defined and granted by the Constitution, because it was not a suit by a citizen of one State against a citizen of another State.

Served as lead counsel for the defendant and obtained reversal by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals of a district court's order certifying a 29 - jurisdiction class action alleging consumer fraud by a Fortune 50 retailer, and subsequently successfully moved for dismissal with prejudice of named plaintiff's claims and obtained a nationwide injunction against future attempts to certify a class based on similar allegations.

In a suit filed by the granddaughter of a 75 - year - old woman who suffers from diabetes and mild dementia, against the woman's niece, who formerly had power of attorney, and her great - niece, the granddaughter's allegations that defendants manipulated the woman's medications...

Ansari v Knowles (2014) A university lecturer claimed in libel and slander for allegations of personal misconduct and professional incompetence against four defendants including Manchester Metropolitan University, a former university colleague and Vilnius University.

The claimant borrowers originally brought proceedings against the defendant bank based on misselling allegations in respect of various loans.

The decision in Totalise plc v The Motley Fool Ltd [2001] EMLR 750 emphasised that the courts are not obliged to provide such relief and can consider wider matters such as the gravity of the defamatory allegations, whether the claimant has a strong prima facie case against the defendant, the size and extent of the potential readership and whether the claimant had any other available method of identifying the authors.

Where the factual allegations against a defendant are serious, the disciplinary body must be astute to guard against the admission of crucial hearsay evidence against the defendant.

[35] While the allegations against the Settling Defendants and non-settling defendants were based upon different allegations of fault, the relief sought was essentially the same: compensation for a wrongful conviction and some 27 years of incaDefendants and non-settling defendants were based upon different allegations of fault, the relief sought was essentially the same: compensation for a wrongful conviction and some 27 years of incadefendants were based upon different allegations of fault, the relief sought was essentially the same: compensation for a wrongful conviction and some 27 years of incarceration.

Personal injury lawsuit claims Uber and its driver are responsible for her serious injuries A New Mexico woman recently filed an Uber accident lawsuit against the ride sharing company and its driver behind the wheel the night of her accident over allegations the defendants» negligence was responsible for her serious injuries.

[13] The plaintiff has made serious allegations against the Markicevic defendants, which the defendants deny.

«Everyone agrees that conversion is historically a tort against a person's interest in a chattel, being derived from the action for trover, which included a fictitious allegation that the plaintiff had lost the chattel and that the defendant had found it.

In 2012, the Ontario Superior Court found that «none of the plaintiff's allegations against the Defendant provide a legal footing on which he can base his claim to damages.»

The SRA goes too far by threatening disciplinary action against practitioners who propose non-disclosure agreements, perhaps on express instructions, which attempt to preclude a party from reporting a potential complaint or allegation, groundless or not, even when both complainant and defendant are keen to close the book on private and unsavoury details of the past and move on.

The defendants thought they had taken legal precautions to protect themselves against antitrust allegations.

Even though the court concluded that Next Generation had no standing to maintain this antitrust suit against the defendants, the court nevertheless went on to consider the validity of the allegations made by Next Generation and Homebuyer's, all of which the court ruled were legally insufficient.

The court also reinstated the conspiracy allegations against the Defendants.