Sentences with phrase «defendant committed an act»

room for doubt about a defendant's guilt in a criminal case, in a civil case, the plaintiff must prove that it is 51 percent (or more) likely that the defendant committed an act of malpractice, and that the malpractice was the cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

Essentially, while there is no room for doubt about a defendant's guilt in a criminal case, in a civil case, the plaintiff must prove that it is 51 percent (or more) likely that the defendant committed an act of malpractice, and that the malpractice was the cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

Once the Crown Attorney has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the act, it is then open to the defendant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he or she took reasonable care to prevent the harm from occurring, or, in other words, was not negligent.

Stated generally, to establish wrongful death you must show that the defendant committed an act or omission that was negligent, reckless, or intentional.

Not exact matches

Defense attorneys have already said the 21 - year - old defendant committed all the crimes he is accused of, but they also contend Tsarnaev did so in an act of subservience to his older brother, not because of a personal passion.

I understand that maybe being a defendant in a Tribunal in Iran where a Half Moon stands behind the judge might be oppressive, since many violence acts are committed in the name of Islam, a country ruled by the Shariah.

In a Charge No: KB / HC / 27C / 2017, the defendants were accused of committing offences contrary to and punishable under Sections 19 and 26 (1)(c) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.

In a Charge No: CR / 136/17, the defendant was accused of committing offences contrary to Section 25 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000, sections 157, 164, 363,366 of Penal Code Laws of the FCT and punishable under Section 68 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000 and sections 158 and 364 of the Penal Code.

Lisa Marie Cater, who previously talked to The Buffalo News on condition her name not be used, named Cuomo as a defendant, alleging he and others in his administration «willfully ignored» numerous complaints she brought to their attention of the «horrific acts» Hoyt allegedly committed.

In the new charges with number FHC / ABJ / CR / 383/2015, the four defendants were accused of conspiracy to commit treasonable felony contrary to section 516 of the Criminal Code Act, CAP.

Each complaint asks the court to enter a permanent injunction barring the defendants from engaging in debt settlement in Illinois and order the defendants to pay restitution for aggrieved consumers, civil penalties of $ 50,000 for violating the Consumer Fraud Act, an additional $ 50,000 penalty for each violation committed with the intent to defraud, as well as a $ 10,000 penalty per violation committed against a person 65 years or older.

The Certificate of Merit is an opinion from a medical expert / certified physician offering evidence that the physician has reviewed the plaintiff's medical records, and based on the review, believes that there is a strong argument for an act of malpractice committed by the defendant based on the fact that evidence suggests the defendant deviated from the appropriate standard of care.

In its suit, the energy giant accuses the defendants of conspiracy to commit illegal acts of trespass, nuisance, assault, intimidation and intentional interference with contractual relations.

Particulars of claim The council's particulars of claim asserted that «permanent injunctive relief pursuant to s 222 of the 1972 Act restraining each defendant's behaviour was likely to achieve the promotion or improvement of the economic, social or environmental wellbeing of the council's area or alternatively that it was expedient for the promotion or protection of their area that the defendant be restrained from committing tortious and criminal acts».

Corporate manslaughter or Gross Negligence Manslaughter is usually where the defendant is a director of a company and has committed an offence under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

The only exception to comparative fault involves cases in which the defendants are found to have conspired to commit an intentional act that led to the victim's personal injury.

The defendant acted with premeditation if (he / she) decided to kill before committing the act that caused death.

The continuance of the prosecution of the defendants after the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment, for a violation of the National Prohibition Act alleged to have been committed in North Carolina, would involve an attempt to continue the application of the statutory

The statute provides that suits for patent infringement may be brought only «in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.»

With respect to the fraud contention, the Court wrote: «Defendant argues that under Exclusion F (the Fraudulent Acts Exclusion), Plaintiffs are barred from coverage because the Allstate suit alleges that Plaintiffs «committed intentional, willful, dishonest and fraudulent acts.»

As a result, a patent owner has two venue options for defendants that are domestic corporations: It may file the infringement action in the defendant's state of incorporation, or in a judicial district where the defendant allegedly has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.

Like a confiscation order, a compensation order is an ancillary court order and is designed to compensate a victim for personal injury or any loss or damage that may have resulted from the offence committed by the defendant and is made in addition, or instead of, other sentencing options under section 130 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (PCCSA).

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the prevailing interpretation of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400 (b), and held in an 8 - 0 decision that a domestic corporation defendant may be sued for patent infringement only in its state of incorporation or in a district where it allegedly «committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.»

The doctrine previously acted to make a defendant who was guilty of a felony also guilty of a killing committed during that felony, even when there was no intent to kill.

Therefore, the High Court passed undertakings by which traders committed not to «create the false impression that the consumer has already won, will win or will on doing a particular act win, a prize or equivalent benefit, when in fact taking any action recommended by the [trader] in relation to claiming the prize or other equivalent benefit is subject to the consumer paying money or incurring a cost which is either: (a) a substantial proportion of the unit cost to the defendant of the provision to the consumer of the thing described as a prize or other equivalent benefit; or (b) in the case of a charge stated to be for delivery and insurance, used by the defendant to finance in whole or in part its acquisition, handling or other cost of the making available of that thing, other than the actual cost of its delivery to the consumer and insurance (if any) in transit» (account rendered by the CJEU in C - 428 / 11 at para 20, emphasis added).

Rather, they are a way to punish the defendant for intentional conduct or gross negligence — behavior that is so egregious that a civil court penalty is warranted in order to deter the defendant from committing the same act again in the future.

A finding in the civil case that the defendant probably committed the criminal act of which he or she was acquitted does not undermine the credibility of a system that found there was a reasonable doubt.

A felony lawyer may be able to prevent you from being convicted of a felony if it is shown that the defendant lacked a «guilty mind» or did not commit a «guilty act».

Therefore, you must demonstrate that the defendant committed a careless, reckless, or intentional act in breaching the duty of care owed to you.

A.I. Enterprises Ltd. v. Bram Enterprises Ltd., 2014 SCC 12 (34863) The tort should be kept within narrow bounds, and be available in three party situations where the defendant commits an unlawful act against a third party that intentionally causes economic harm to the plaintiff.

It is further alleged that the defendants intentionally committed certain acts (said to be acts of bad faith and improper conduct bordering upon fraud) that impeded the transfer of assets, constituting breach of contract, and thereby caused the plaintiff to suffer specific financial losses.

The ARP achieved the desired result on the basis that the first defendant committed the dishonest acts that gave rise to the claims, and that the second and third defendants, by their condoning of general dishonest conduct, were themselves dishonest.

He also held that the first defendant would not otherwise have been able to commit the specific acts that led to the claims.

The defendant was subsequently convicted of committing an act of outraging public decency contrary to the common law.

The patent venue statute states that venue is appropriate either: (1) «in the judicial district where the defendant resides,» or (2) «where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.»

In TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that patent owners can sue corporate defendants only in districts where the defendant is incorporated or has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.

In TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods, the court ruled that patent owners can sue corporate defendants only in districts where the defendant is incorporated or has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.

This statute says that venue in patent cases is proper either (1) where the defendant «resides» or (2) where the defendant has «committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.»

Dr. Gardner was willing to testify that it was unlikely that the defendant was inclined to commit pedophilic acts, even though he admitted «that whether a person may have these indications or not, no one can conclusively determine whether or not someone has committed a particular pedophilic act, based solely on psychiatric evaluation.»