Sentences with phrase «defendant against the plaintiff»

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 burden of proof is always on the plaintiff (except for counterclaims brought by the defendant against the plaintiff).

Not exact matches

O'Leary himself is named as a «mise en cause,» someone who is not the main defendant but could be included if the plaintiff believes it may be necessary down the line to invoke a judgment against that person.

It is the first defendant to settle and agreed to help the plaintiffs with their case against the remaining defendants, which are American Airlines Group (aal), Delta Air Lines (dal) and United Continental Holdings (ual).

Jack, District Judge: Plaintiff, McIlhenny Company, a corporation of the State of Maine, which, with its predecessors, for many years past, has manufactured at Avery Island, Louisiana, a condiment known as «Tabasco Pepper Sauce,» brings this action against defendant Ed.

Not only did defendant adopt the name and imitate the bottles and cartons in use by plaintiff, but at the very beginning, when he started the manufacture and sale of his sauce in competition with the long established business of plaintiff, he printed on his bottle labels a caution to use «only the genuine Evangeline,» thus apparently seeking to create the impression that such «Evangeline» Tabasco Sauce was an old and established brand, against spurious imitations of which the public should be warned.

c. General damages against defendant for violating the sexual right of plaintiff by sexually abusing her without her consent.

Plaintiff states again that 2nd Defendant has not said a word against this marauding show of power without any legal justification by the 1st Defendant's request of a deposit of filing fees for the 2016 Presidential and Parliamentary Elections thereby embolden 1st Defendant in perpetuating these obvious illegalities against the political parties and individual candidates in this 2016 general elections.

v. General damages for libel against Defendant for publishing and or causing to be published the aforesaid words of and concurring in Plaintiff.

The Shanghai SIPG forward is praying the High Court to place a «perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, whether by themselves, servants, agents or assigns from repeating similar or other libelous words against the plaintiff as well as costs, including lawyers» fees.»

The summons states, «Beginning on November 1, 2017, Defendants knowingly and / or recklessly published or caused to be published false, misleading statements against Plaintiff Michelle J. Schoeneman, a candidate for the Erie County Legislature for the 10th Legislative District.

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.»

Appeal from judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Mark D. Fox, Magistrate Judge), which held that defendant Board of Education of the Newburgh Enlarged City School District intentionally discriminated against plaintiff Santina Polera in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and awarded damages to plaintiff.

Pursuant to Section 2 (b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act («APPA» or «Tunney Act»), 15 U.S.C. 16 (b)- (h), Plaintiff United States of America («United States») files this Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed Final Judgment against Defendants Hachette Book Group, Inc. («Hachette»), HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. («HarperCollins»), and Simon & Schuster, Inc. («Simon & Schuster»; collectively with Hachette and HarperCollins, «Settling Defendants»), submitted on April 11, 2012, for entry in this antitrust proceeding.

While there is precedent for filing the suit against all of the defendants together, other similar cases have resulted in a judge ordering that there be separate trials for each defendant, making the plaintiff much less likely to sue each offender.

The filing party is called a plaintiff and the one it's filed against is called a defendant, who is the person who is sued.

Plaintiffs argue the sheer volume of three hundred total investment choices for retirement investors indicates that defendants failed properly to monitor and evaluate the historical performance and expense of each of these funds, compare that historical performance and expense to a peer group of funds and / or even compare the three segments against one another.

A judgment is a legal term used when a plaintiff files and wins a civil lawsuit against a defendant.

The judge also said the plaintiffs must specifically describe the circumstances of the various fraudulent acts and omissions alleged against the defendants.

«For this reason, Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Defendants for breach of statutory duties, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, recovery of chattels and an accounting,» court documents state.

The National Petrochemical Plaintiffs argue that Defendants «gerrymandered the criteria to reach this outcome,» which establishes that the purpose and design of the LCFS is to discriminate against out - of - state and foreign HCICOs.

(This desire of the defendant to defend himself against a multi-million dollar lawsuit is deemed by Mann's acolytes to be evidence of an unhealthy «obsession» with the plaintiff.

Accordingly, I am unable to agree with the plaintiff's contention that the defendant's conduct in the mediation was contrary to the requirements of s. 258.6 of the Insurance Act, such that it ought to attract punitive cost sanctions against the defendant.

We, the Jury, now find for the Plaintiff, [Sienkowski], and find against the Defendant, [Verschuure], in the sum of:

Summary: The plaintiffs hired the defendant lawyer and his law firm to represent them in their lawsuit against HouseMaster Inspection Service for a deficient house inspection.

As Zal notes, the plaintiffs in the fraud lawsuit against Bluford — which continues against other defendants even though Bluford settled — filed a request on Feb. 21, 2017, to dismiss QuickLegal as a defendant.

(2) Exceptionally, a plaintiff may succeed by showing that the defendant's conduct materially contributed to risk of the plaintiff's injury, where (a) the plaintiff has established that her loss would not have occurred «but for» the negligence of two or more tortfeasors, each possibly in fact responsible for the loss; and (b) the plaintiff, through no fault of her own, is unable to show that any one of the possible tortfeasors in fact was the necessary or «but for» cause of her injury, because each can point to one another as the possible «but for» cause of the injury, defeating a finding of causation on a balance of probabilities against anyone.

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.

A defendant in an existing case may file a third - party claim against someone other than the plaintiff because the outcome of the case between the plaintiff and the defendant will affect the rights or responsibilities of that third party.

«This is going to cause great uncertainty going forward in complex litigation against multiple defendants in federal courts and in state cases with plaintiffs in one state and a defendant in another state.»

If the successful plaintiff has a cost award against the defendant, most of these disbursements will be paid by the defendant.

After her husband died, the plaintiff filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the defendant nursing home.

In order for plaintiff to recover punitive damages against the defendant [s], the plaintiff must

The plaintiff also filed a lawsuit against FedEx, arguing that they were directly negligent and vicariously liable for the co-driver's (defendant's) negligence.

The Plaintiff claims as against the Defendant, Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP («Cassels Brock»), for conspiracy, defamation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty of good faith, breach of confidence, and negligence...

On appeal, the plaintiffs» requested that the judgment dismissing the action against Mr. Vicentini and Ford Credit be set aside and liability be apportioned equally between those two defendants and Mr. Hoang and requested that the amount of damages be increased.

Additionally, Plaintiff brought a negligence action against the defendant for damages associated with the accident that he caused.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendants, a physician and a pharmacy.

A defendant is entitled to expect that a claim of liability brought against it will be decided by the same rules of evidence and substantive law whether the plaintiff is represented by counsel or self - represented.»

Against those factors is the short period of time that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant.

For better or for worse, our system is set up as an adversarial one where persons claiming damages for harm suffered (called «plaintiffs») assert these claims against the persons who caused the harm (called «defendants»).

In future class action claims against nationwide corporate defendants, it appears that the U.S. Supreme Court is generally requiring piecemeal litigation in each state where a plaintiff was injured, instead of allowing for a single consolidated class action in a single state court lawsuit.

In the coverage action, the plaintiffs were successful in obtaining summary judgment against the defendant insurer requiring the payment of damages, costs and interest in the underlying action.

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.

Mercury has been served as a purported UM carrier and Plaintiff is seeking to hold Mercury liable to satisfy all or a portion of any judgment which might be rendered against Defendant in this matter.

e) Even if the defendant's negligence created causal uncertainty and the plaintiff has adduced some evidence in support of its theory of causation, the trial judge is not obliged to draw an inference of causation against the defendant: Benhaim at para. 42.

Instead, they were only sued under the PAGA claim, and here is the kicker — plaintiffs never sought fee entitlement in the notice of motion and motion under the PAGA fee - shifting provision much less attempted to segregate fee recovery against individual defendants solely against the PAGA claim.

Plaintiff claims to have suffered injuries in said accident and seeks to recover a judgment against Defendant for the same.

Plaintiff also won a $ 503,450.02 fee award and $ 31,679.08 costs award against both defendants.