These defendants appealed the judgment, arguing that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could establish that the garbage truck driver's conduct caused the death at hand.
In Hospadales v. McCoy,
the defendants appealed a judgment in a truck accident case that awarded the plaintiff damages in the amount of $ 292,000 for past pain and suffering, past medical expenses, and past lost earning capacity.
Not exact matches
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.
Defendants had
appealed this Court's decision denying summary
judgment as to the Government's claim for disgorgement under 18 U.S.C. 1964 (a).
In Kalinchuk v. JP Sanchez Construction Co., a Texas plaintiff
appealed summary
judgment in favor of the
defendant, a construction company.
After a series of lower court decisions resulted in conflicting conclusions, the
Appeals Court vacated a Superior Court
judgment allowing the
defendant's motion for summary
judgment, concluding that the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of the three - year limitation period of G.L. c. 84, § 15.
When the
defendant files an
appeal, he or she can post a financial bond to stop collection of the
judgment.
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.
AND the
appeals court making the claim that the
defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that he / she was damaged then «changing» that level of proof to what appears to be a higher standard by saying, «On review, we will not reverse the
judgment unless the evidence as a whole unerringly and unmistakably leads to a conclusion opposite that reached by the post-conviction court.»
The court of
appeals reversed summary
judgment for
defendant, holding that 1) the district court erred in its analysis of whether a witness's statement was made in reaction to a truly startling event, and whether the statement was made under the stress of excitement caused by that event; and 2) there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
defendant's failure to remove the stump was a proximate cause of plaintiff's accident.
In reasons for
judgment released today, the BC Court of
Appeal overturned the order of a Master denying the
defendant costs thrown away in circumstances where the plaintiff was successful in obtaining an adjournment of an impending trial.
The Manitoba Court of
Appeal has held that a
defendants» motion for summary
judgment should be dismissed, rejecting their argument that claims for pure economic loss for patent defects that are not imminently dangerous should not proceed to trial.
On
appeal, the plaintiffs argued that it was an error for the court to dismiss their defect and negligence claims because the only grounds to grant the motion for summary
judgment relied on the trial court granting the
defendant's request to exclude the expert's testimony.
This is a writ of error to the County Court of Oneida County, in the State of New York (to which court the record had been remitted), to review the
judgment of the Court of
Appeal of that State affirming the
judgment of the Supreme Court, which itself affirmed the
judgment of the County Court, convicting the
defendant of a misdemeanor on an indictment under a statute of that State, known, by its short title, as the labor
The Court of
Appeal will not interfere with a ruling as to admissibility of evidence of a
defendant's bad character unless the judge's
judgment as to the capacity of prior events to establish propensity is plainly wrong, or discretion to exclude under s 101 (3) has been exercised unreasonably in the Wednesbury sense.
But the
defendant later had reason to smile when an
appeals court vacated the
judgment in his case and ordered a new trial after Wilson's actions came to light.
The application of the «real and substantial connection» test for enforcement of foreign
judgments was further clarified by the Ontario Court of
Appeal in a recent decision, part of a bitter and protracted legal battle over nearly $ 10 billion in environmental damages caused by the operations of Texaco (later acquired by the
defendant Chevron) in Ecuador.
The parties, after the trial judge made his order for
judgment, stipulated that the
defendants (without waiving their rights of
appeal) would accept the third alternative but would reduce to ten the number of shares of Sales Leadership to be transferred to O'Hara.
For example, a
defendant may lodge an
appeal against the
judgment given by a trial judge.
Trial court verdicts or
judgments that found for plaintiffs were reversed or modified on
appeal at higher rates compared with trial court outcomes favoring
defendants (42 percent versus 21 percent).
Gaber v. Gaber, No. 98 - CV -0483-MA; A106861 (Oregon Court of
Appeals, September 26, 2001): Plaintiff wife
appealed from a summary
judgment for
defendant husband in an action for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
In Ferrara v. Lorenzetti, Wolfe6, the majority
judgment of the Court of
Appeal (Laskin and Sharpe, J.J.A.) held the plaintiff's claim against the
defendant solicitor was NOT statute barred.
The appellant submits that he has three grounds of
appeal: that the chambers judge erred in concluding that the damages could not be quantified; that the judge erred in dismissing the claim when the appellant already had two default
judgments against the
defendants; and that the judge erred by dismissing the claim on his own motion without notice to the appellant...
Stapleton v Howard Kennedy: Chris was instructed on behalf of the
Defendant solicitors in this claim which came on for trial after the Claimant's
appeal against summary
judgment entered for the
Defendants was allowed.
In response, some of the
defendant insurers brought summary
judgment motions seeking to relitigate this question of law and challenge the correctness of the Court of
Appeal's decision in McNaughton.
Hawksford Trustees Jersey Limited — v - Halliwells: Chris is instructed on behalf of the
Defendant solicitors in relation to
appeals and cross
appeals to be heard against the first instance
judgment which allowed some heads of claim but not others.
On
appeal, the court agreed with the lower court's decision to grant
judgment to the
defendants, finding two separate reasons why the plaintiff's complaint failed.
The Indiana Court of
Appeals recently reversed a trial court summary
judgment favoring the
defendant in a claim that originated as a premises liability lawsuit stemming from a trip - and - fall that seriously injured an 85 - year - old woman.
When a writ of summons or an equivalent document has had to be transmitted to another Member State for the purpose of service, under the provisions of this Regulation, and a
judgment has been entered against a
defendant who has not appeared, the judge shall have the power to relieve the
defendant from the effects of the expiration of the time for
appeal from the
judgment if the following conditions are fulfilled:
Successfully obtained affirmation by U.S. Court of
Appeals, Fifth Circuit, of a summary
judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of
defendant real estate partnership.
In a recent Texas auto accident decision, a woman
appealed from a take nothing
judgment after a jury trial in her personal injury lawsuit against a
defendant, claiming injuries when the
defendant's vehicle hit hers from behind.
San Bernardino Partner Art Cunningham and San Diego Appellate Partners Jeffry Miller, Ernest Slome, and Brittany Bartold Sutton recently prevailed in an
appeal from the
judgment entered following a trial court's grant of summary
judgment in favor of the
defendant in a negligence suit.
The magistrate gave
judgment for the plaintiffs, and the
defendant appealed to the Court of Common Pleas.
Los Angeles Partners David Shapiro and Christopher Greenleaf and Los Angeles Appellate Partner Caroline Chan recently prevailed in an
appeal from a summary
judgment ruling in favor of the
defendants in a wrongful death premises liability lawsuit.
San Francisco Partner Florence McClain, along with San Diego Appellate Practice Partners Jeffry Miller, Lann McIntyre, and Brittany Bartold Sutton, recently prevailed in an
appeal from the
judgment entered following a trial court's grant of summary
judgment in favor of the
defendant in an asbestos suit.
The court granted
judgment for the plaintiff after a bench trial for the full amount of its claim (about $ 22,000) and the
defendant appealed.
Take - aways: A
defendant that doesn't
appeal a
judgment can still benefit from a co-
defendant's successful
appeal where there is an interdependence of rights between the two
defendants.
The
judgment confirmed that the DIFC Court has jurisdiction to enforce foreign court
judgments, following the decision of the DIFC Court of
Appeal decision in the DNB Bank ASA v Gulf Eyadah Corporation & another [2015] DIFC CA 007 which «dealt authoritatively» with the question of the DIFC Courts» jurisdiction in this area and unanimously rejecting arguments raised by the
Defendant to the contrary.
After years of wrangling, the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals laid the case to rest in late 2013, with a firm
judgment that: «It is simply incompatible with common sense and experience to hold that
defendants were required to design and construct a building that would survive the events of September 11, 2001.»
Attorney Michael Bogdanow argued the
appeal before the SJC in December 2014 and on April 17, 2015, the SJC upheld the
judgment for the plaintiff and rejected the
defendants» arguments.
APPEAL from, and certiorari (309 U.S. 626) to review, a
judgment which sustained the conviction of all the
defendants on one count of an information and the conviction of one of the
defendants on another count.
The
defendant's
appeal to the Court of Appeal was allowed on a majority judgment on the basis that: l The question was whether or not a joint intention could properly be inferred from the parties» conduct since separation that, over time, the 50/50 split would be varied so that the property was currently held 90 % by the claimant and 10 % by the defe
appeal to the Court of
Appeal was allowed on a majority judgment on the basis that: l The question was whether or not a joint intention could properly be inferred from the parties» conduct since separation that, over time, the 50/50 split would be varied so that the property was currently held 90 % by the claimant and 10 % by the defe
Appeal was allowed on a majority
judgment on the basis that: l The question was whether or not a joint intention could properly be inferred from the parties» conduct since separation that, over time, the 50/50 split would be varied so that the property was currently held 90 % by the claimant and 10 % by the
defendant.
As insurers continue to face ostensibly stale claims for noise induced hearing loss and other occupational diseases the Court of
Appeal judgment in Pratt v BRB (Residuary) Ltd [2014] EWCA 1401 will an important tool in a
defendant's locker for some time to come.
In Rowe v. Gibson, a divided panel of the federal Court of
Appeals for the 7th Circuit dismissed the
defendants» motion for summary
judgment in their favour.
An Indiana bicycle accident claim will go no further after the Indiana Court of
Appeals ruled the trial court was wrong to deny summary
judgment favoring the
defendant city.
The plaintiff Saleh Mizyed
appealed from the trial judge's order granting summary
judgment, which dismissed his medical malpractice complaint against the
defendant Palos Community Hospital.
The Indiana Court of
Appeals reversed a trial court's order granting summary
judgment for the plaintiffs, and denying summary
judgment for the
defendants, in a dispute over insurance coverage.
The
defendants lost their challenge to the court's jurisdiction in the Ontario Court of
Appeal judgment released yesterday — Friday the 13th, as it happens.
● The Court of
Appeal gave
judgment in favour of the
defendant to a personal injury claim in two cases where the key issue was the standard of care owed by one individual to another; and
The Court of
Appeal's
judgment means that a
defendant's complaints about prejudicial reporting are likely to fall on deaf ears.