Sentences with phrase «defendants appealed»

The defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal on the issue of whether pleading the intention to seek leave was sufficient to suspend the limitation period.

The defendants appealed their conviction and sentences through several levels of appeals, finally arriving in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

The defendants appealed saying the family failed to prove the continued use of the medicine caused the disease,...

The defendants appealed saying the family failed to prove the continued use of the medicine caused the disease, the case was preempted by federal law and damages were excessive.

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.

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.

The defendants appealed.

The master ruled in favour of the authority and the defendants appealed.

The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, which released its decision last month.

The application was rejected and the defendants appealed.

Upon conviction the defendants appealed.

The defendants appealed to the Manitoba Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal.

The Defendants appealed and succeeded.

The Defendants appealed.

The individual defendants appealed, and it was a good thing they did.

The defendants appealed.

Thereafter, the defendant appealed — alleging the trial judge had been bribed.

The defendant appealed, first to a judge of the Federal Court, who had upheld the prothonotary's decision.

The defendant appealed unsuccessfully to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court should have excluded any damages that could be attributed to the plaintiff's employer and for failing to follow a particular formula in calculating prejudgment interest.

The justices allowed the application and the defendant appealed.

The defendant appealed.

The defendant appealed the trial verdict to the state court of appeals, specifically attacking the jury's finding that the driver of the vehicle was acting within the scope of his employment when he crashed into the plaintiff.

The defendant appealed, arguing that there was a question of material fact about whether the dog was controlled by a competent person at the time of the biting.

The defendant appealed from the large verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

The insurer for the Defendant appealed arguing that the judge was wrong in using the «material contribution «test.

The defendant appealed, arguing that the defect was not reasonably foreseeable and that the plaintiff did not establish that the divot was the cause of her injuries.

The Defendant appealed arguing MSP records were disclosable as a matter of course in a personal injury claim.

There was one case of which I am aware in which the defendant appealed a sentence after the old District Attorney had argued that the sentence as valid in the trial court, prevailed in the trial court, and caused the defendant to appeal the sentence.

The first defendant appealed on liability and apportionment, and the second defendant cross-appealed on liability.

The defendant appealed so I followed this path.

The defendant appealed to the House of Lords.

The defendant appealed on the grounds that the trial judge had mistakenly considered that he was determining whether there had been exposure to a risk of asbestos rather than to a risk of harm.

The defendant appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court.

The defendant appealed to a judge at the Superior Court.

The defendant appealed the decision, arguing that the trial judge did not properly instruct the jury on the issue of F.T.'s prior discreditable conduct.

The Defendant appealed.

In this appeal the two wholesaler - defendants appeal from a district court's refusal to enforce arbitration agreements signed by two plaintiffs because those arbitration agreements were later assigned by those defendants.

The defendant appealed, arguing that the motion judge had applied the wrong law.

The defendant appealed against his conviction.

The magistrate gave judgment for the plaintiffs, and the defendant appealed to the Court of Common Pleas.

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.

The defendant appealed to the Appeals Court, which rejected his claim that he was denied his constitutional right to counsel at trial.

The defendant appealed against conviction for an offence of racially aggravated threatening behaviour, contrary to the Public Order Act 1986, s 4 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (CDA 1998), s 31 (1)(a), arguing that the phrase used was not capable of demonstrating hostility based on membership of a racial group.

The defendant appealed to the Chancery Division.

The defendant appealed his conviction, alleging that the trial judge erred in excluding the expert witness.

The jury found the defendants guilty, but one defendant appealed the decision, which led to the Texas Supreme Court precedent.

The second defendant appealed.

The first defendant appealed.