Sentences with phrase «defendant in the case raising»

The leadership fight in the Flint water contamination cases has escalated, with co-lead counsel firing back against «false and misleading accusations» and at least one defendant in the case raising concerns about the communications that all the lead plaintiffs lawyers have had with prospective class members.

Not exact matches

The criminal complaint charging Seabrook and his fellow defendant, hedge - fund manager Murray Huberfeld, strongly suggests that a witness who is cooperating with the government in the case, Jona S. Rechnitz, could also serve as an important witness in at least one of the fund - raising inquiries centered on NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio.

Nassau County DA Kathleen Rice spoke Tuesday at a press conference organized by the Raise The Age coalition calling for the way the state handles 16 - and 17 - year - old defendants in criminal cases.

[As regards the fourth submission Mr Nathan relies on another dictum of Potter LJ in Downing where he said: «The burden of proving that any of the grounds in s. 9 (4) has been made out lies upon the claimant and, if the defendant can raise an arguable case in favour of validity, a stay should be granted: Hume v AA Mutual International Insurance Co Ltd [1996] LRLR 19.»]

First, the defendant's own knowledge and intent and state of mind are especially crucial in perjury and obstruction of justice cases; the obvious witness to negate those charges, or at least to raise a reasonable doubt about them, is the defendant himself.

Anxiety levels have been raised by the French government with the recommendation that these implants are removed and key discussions are taking place as to the appropriate defendants in these cases (eg manufacturer, clinics, clinicians, hospital).

In both cases, defendants were raised religiously but were not members of a church with an officially pacifist doctrine.

In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization's ability to operate.

The situation in Tamminga was almost identical to Forsythe's case, and many of the same arguments were raised, including the connection between the plaintiff's insurance contract and the defendant tortfeasor.

The prosecution accepted in this case that, by the end of the evidence, each of the defendants had adduced evidence that sufficed to raise the issue as to whether or not his possession of the relevant article or articles was for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or

(Order, p. 2) As the court notes in its summary of the order, an acquittal can issue either when a jury returns a not - guilty verdict, or «when a trial court grants a defendant's new trial motion for evidentiary insufficiency... or dismisses a case... for evidentiary insufficiency» (Id., pp. 2 — 3) The essence of the court's decision is in two parts: (1) The new trial motion should not have been granted because there was sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Stern on counts of conspiracy; and (2) Because the trial court did not rule on the majority of the issues raised in Stern's motion for a new trial, those issues have yet to be decided, and should be addressed on remand by the court of appeals.

The case proceeded to trial to resolve the issues raised in defendants «counterclaims of tortious interference with contractual relations; tortious interference with business relationships and expectancies; violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act and a declaratory judgment that defendants «trade dress is non-infringing.

The questions Kaine raised as a defense lawyer were mostly related to process — from the time given for federal court review of cases and the rules that Virginia state courts had for review of capital cases to the quality of the lawyers provided to criminal defendants in those cases and the way those lawyers carried out that defense — but that process, as Kaine said at the time, is sometimes the difference between life and death.

Defendants may raise contributory negligence as a mitigating factor to minimize damages in these kinds of cases if the plaintiff chose not to wear a seatbelt, strapped a child in their seat improperly, or was driving recklessly or under the influence.

The Federal Circuit's In re Micron Tech opinion that TC Heartland changed the law controlling proper venue in patent cases provides an opportunity for patent defendants to challenge venue even if they failed to raise it before the Supreme Court issued its TC Heartland opinioIn re Micron Tech opinion that TC Heartland changed the law controlling proper venue in patent cases provides an opportunity for patent defendants to challenge venue even if they failed to raise it before the Supreme Court issued its TC Heartland opinioin patent cases provides an opportunity for patent defendants to challenge venue even if they failed to raise it before the Supreme Court issued its TC Heartland opinion.

In response to the application, the defendant raised the issue of the Master's jurisdiction under s. 9 (3) of the Court of Queen's Bench Act, and the availability of summary judgment in the context of a wrongful dismissal casIn response to the application, the defendant raised the issue of the Master's jurisdiction under s. 9 (3) of the Court of Queen's Bench Act, and the availability of summary judgment in the context of a wrongful dismissal casin the context of a wrongful dismissal case.

In the recent case (Tran v. Cordero) the Defendant raised an admissibility concern regarding the Plaintiff's expert report alleging bias.

The doctrine of avoidable consequences, sometimes referred to as the «duty to mitigate,» is an affirmative defense that can be raised by defendants in personal injury cases to argue the plaintiff was partially or fully responsible due to failure to exercise reasonable care to reduce the injury or damages suffered.

Although arbitration agreements are binding, it is possible for a defendant to waive their right to enforce the agreement if they fail to raise the defense soon enough in a state or federal court action brought by a plaintiff, as occurred in the Johnson case.

The case raises interesting and important issues that often arise in Florida personal injury cases involving government defendants.

In an opinion that once again raises concerns about the state's shortage of funds for indigent capital defense, a divided Georgia Supreme Court has sent a death penalty case back to the trial court to determine if a systemic breakdown in the state's public defender system deprived the defendant of counseIn an opinion that once again raises concerns about the state's shortage of funds for indigent capital defense, a divided Georgia Supreme Court has sent a death penalty case back to the trial court to determine if a systemic breakdown in the state's public defender system deprived the defendant of counsein the state's public defender system deprived the defendant of counsel.

Apple points to a recent criminal case in which a circuit court (in that case, the United States of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit) «denied a similar request for remand despite an indicative ruling that the criminal defendant's motion to adjust his sentence raised a «substantial issue,» and that the district court would apply a new sentencing approach if the case was remanded».

... the district court erred in dismissing a juror, based largely on its finding that the juror was purposefully disregarding the court's instructions on the law, where the record evidence raised the possibility that the juror's view on the merits of the case was motivated by doubts about the defendants» guilt, rather than by an intent to nullify the law.

The Shekhdar case Angela mentioned in the «what is a judgment thread» is an example, I suppose, of a case decide in the defendant's favour on a point raised by the judge on his own volition.

The only case that I recall, of hand, of an action being dismissed on an point not argued at all but appearing only in the judges reasons is the (ahem) classic Joly v Pelletier & Shoppers Drug Mart case in which the motion judge dismissed the action on a «standing» argument the moving defendants didn't raise.

This judgment does not have the effect of admitting such interviews in every case and practitioners will wish to consider fully the issues raised and the detriment, if any, caused to the defendant as a result of being denied legal advice and assistance.

The obvious practical implication of this for practitioners is that in every case involving an aircraft crash, the claimant would be best advised to raise res ipsa at the outset and leave all the running to the defendant.

(b) If defendant raises a question of jurisdiction or venue or in paternity cases the defense of the statute of limitations, the court shall promptly dispose of the question and may, in an appropriate case, stay the domestic relations office conference.

The Court now rules that such use of peremptory challenges in a given case may, but does not necessarily, raise an inference, which the prosecutor carries the burden of refuting, [p101] that his strikes were based on the belief that no black citizen could be a satisfactory juror or fairly try a black defendant.

From a practical perspective the four main difficulties are that (1) people convicted of crimes often lack the income or assets to pay judgments, (2) there are double recovery issues involved in reconciling restitution awards in a criminal case (where the measure of damages is narrower) and damage awards in a civil case (where the measure of damages is broader), (3) there are priority issues involved in reconciling criminal awards for fines, restitution and costs, in each case with civil awards for damages, and (4) if the defendant declares bankruptcy, the non-dischargeability of the civil judgment must be affirmatively raised and proved (often this is elementary but there are strict time limits) in the bankruptcy proceeding.

In appropriate cases, affirmative defenses, such as contributory negligence, etc., may also be raised by a defendant.

March 12, 2018)(which we discussed for other reasons, here), where the defendant had not initially raised personal jurisdiction against «unnamed, nonresident class members,» either in «their answer» or while «litigating this case for many years.»