Sentences with phrase «defendants argued»

The defendants argued that they didn't owe duties to Letsos, since their listing agreement had expired.

In the course of her lawsuit the Defendants argued that these circumstances brought the commute within the «course of employment» stripping her of the right to sue.

The defendants argued that the trial judge had taken a holistic approach to assessment of infringement and that the Court should instead apply an approach similar to the «abstraction - filtration - comparison» approach used to assess substantiality in the context of computer software infringement in the United States per Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 Ph.D 693 (2nd Cir.

The Defendants argued that these should be reduced by the amount of any payments that could be claimed under the health benefits program for Aboriginal persons.

The Yates and Tozman defendants argued that the action should be stayed under the International Commercial Arbitration Act, the British Columbia legislation which applies to international commercial arbitration.

The defendants argued that a misrepresentation occurs where it is received and acted upon, relying on Central Sun Mining Inc. v. Vector Engineering Inc., 2013 ONCA 601, and Gulevich v. Miller, 2015 ABCA 411.

The defendants argued that the testator should never have relied on them to prepare the will nor to arrange or supervise its execution because the accountant defendant was not a lawyer and did not hold himself out to be an expert in legal matters.

In Franbar, the defendants argued that the claim was brought with «insufficient cogency» and the damages suffered had not been made out.

The defendants argued that since there was not yet any national identity register, they could not be convicted of an offence under s 25 (1) of the Identity Cards Act 2006.

The defendants argued that the claim was solely Martinrea's claim and that it had to be pursued as a derivative action on behalf of the corporation, with leave of the court.

The defendants argued that joining the fraudulent conveyances action with the personal injury action would unduly lengthen the proceedings, and that they should be heard in separate trials.

The defendants argued that under New Mexico law, an expert witness is always required to show causation of an injury, and since the plaintiff has not designated an expert witness on that issue, that the plaintiff can not obtain relief.

Defendants argued plaintiff could not offer evidence showing the actual negotiated outcome «would have» been «better» had plaintiff been given the purported correct advice.

The defendants argued that the agreement to pay the rent at a reduced rate applied to the whole term of the lease.

The defendants argued that leave should be denied since the well - established test required the plaintiff to prove a substantial or unexpected change in circumstances since the action was set down for trial.

The Defendants argued the Court had no jurisdiction to resolve the dispute as the league's collective bargaining agreement required the complained to be dealt with via private arbitration.

Novick v. AXA Network LLC, the defendants argued that they were required to conduct searches that were excessive, duplicative and burdensome.

When the case was heard by the District Court, the Defendants argued that under Indiana's Medical Malpractice Act («the Act»), a complaint is considered filed only when it is sent by US Postal Service Registered or Certified mail.

Defendants argued that the impact was not sufficient to cause the client's injuries.

The defendants argued that they were not aware of the requirement to serve notice to renew, the requirement had not been enforced previously, they believed that their agreements would be renewed and that Apollo knew that they intended to continue to operate their franchise business.

The defendants argued that the two individuals named as defendants, Maureen and Elizabeth Graham, were at all material times directors of Graham Automotive Sales Inc., and as such were not the plaintiff's employer.

The defendants argued that the words «It is thus...» connoted a direct connection with the three immediately preceding paragraphs, which were concerned only with the amount of compensation.

The defendants argued that the claimants should not be considered the winners of the trial as they were awarded damages which were but a small proportion of their claim.

Apart from the dubious nature of the court's application of the legislation to domain names, issues arise in the case as to whether Kentucky has jurisdiction and whether domain names are property or, as the defendants argued:

The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff had attorned to the Ontario court's jurisdiction over the counterclaim by commencing the recognition action.

The defendants argued that the claimants had acquiesced in the infringement of their common law rights.

Because more than two years had passed between the accident and the filing of the action, the defendants argued that the applicable two - year limitation period had expired.

The defendants argued that they had no duty to Sherman as it was his own negligence in leaving the phone behind that caused the problem, and that they had no duty «to safeguard the contents of a negligently lost cell phone.»

Among other things, the defendants argued that the video was misleading because it included only excerpts of the deposition taken out of context.

Defendants argued that the site comments could prejudice jurors.

The defendants argued that possible prejudice existed here because they argued not only that the plaintiff did not suffer from CRPS but also that if he did suffer from the condition, it was caused by his subsequent treatment.

Defendants argued...

In fact, the district court stating that it was «going to agree with the Government» implies that the Defendants argued the opposite position.

The defendants argued that, nevertheless, the claimants had failed to beat their offer and should pay their costs from the end of the relevant period.

Apparently, the defendants argued that Pinot Noir was not really a varietal, but rather a combination of taste characteristics.

The Amgen defendants argued that divestment from the company stock would have caused a drop in stock price, but the court found it plausible the fiduciaries could have removed the Amgen Common Stock Fund as an investment option in the plan without causing harm to participants.

During the earlier motion to dismiss, the defendants argued that there was simply no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the parties involved, although Judge Cote disagreed.

In both cases, the defendants argued that this exposure was slight compared to the exposure to asbestos in the general atmosphere where the two women lived.

Defendants argued that it was plaintiffs» who advised them (defendants) who were then living the USA to come to Ghana to babysit their handicapped.

Defendants argued that the plaintiff's claim, based on California state law, was preempted by the NLEA, which allows «insignificant» amounts of trans fat to be labeled as zero grams.

On their motion for summary judgment, defendants argued that plaintiffs had not satisfied the loss causation requirement of Section 10 (b) because plaintiffs» losses were not caused by the revelation that First Solar had committed fraud.

«In 2012 alone over 250 judicial opinions — more than double the number in 2007 — cited defendants arguing in some form or another that their «brains made them do it,»» according to an analysis by Nita Farahany, a law professor and director of Duke University's Initiative for Science and Society.

But in their motion for dismissal, the defendants argue that Mallon does not own any copyright to begin with.

Noting that the defendants argue the complaint against them «contains no independent allegations of a direct agreement to raise the price of eBooks,» Judge Cote penned this simple, declarative sentence: «The defendants are incorrect.»

The defendants further contended that «the unions understood and accepted this bargain... Because the unions accepted this bargain, and because for most of the 17 funds at issue, fees charged to plan participants by the «retail» class were the same as the fees charged by the «institutional» class, net of the revenue sharing paid by the funds to defray the plan's recordkeeping costs, defendants argue that investment in the retail share classes was prudent.»

Had such an assessment taken place, defendant argued, «the accident may have been avoided as Ms. Morrison might have had more supervision on the evening of the accident.»

At the hearing in April 2016 the defendant argued that these sums were disproportionate and ought to be reduced further.

161, 162 - 163 (1996)(Lenk, J.), the defendants argue that the fact they were no longer employees of Gillette when they made use of the confidential information is of no consequence, since there would be no wrongdoing to complain of without the confidentiality agreement that was part of their original employment relationship.

The Defendant argued that this rule was «limited to objections on the contents of the report» and did not apply to expert qualifications.

[39] As for the WCAT issue, the defendant argued it was not complicated and could have been determined in Provincial Court.