Sentences with phrase «defendants in their case regarding»

Domenico and Eleanore De Sole have settled with the remaining defendants in their case regarding their purchase of a fake Mark Rothko painting from New York's Knoedler Gallery for $ 8.3 million in 2004.

Not exact matches

Levandowski, regarded as a visionary in autonomous technology, is not a defendant in the case but is on Waymo's witness list.

«At bottom,» the motion continues, «it appears that Mr. Clark will be called to testify to the ultimate fact at issue in this case: whether Defendant poisoned cats... However, Defendant has not proffered that Mr. Clark has any specialized knowledge of or experience regarding Defendant's behavior.»

At the end of the day by his own admission, Mann is a «public figure» and the bar is set far too high with regards to comments about him for this case to end in anything other than a judgment for the defendant.

[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.»]

It knows as both the legal aid funder of clinical negligence litigation and as the defendant compensator (as it is in the vast majority of clinical negligence cases) that access to justice is extremely costly to it in costs and damages, and that by attacking access to justice its outlay in both regards will be reduced substantially.

The dispute in this case was regarding the evidence presented to prove that the plaintiff's injuries were directly related to the accident with the defendant.

Possible legal theories that can be argued in a products liability case include negligence (lack of reasonable care in the manufacture or sale of the product or in warning about the product), breach of warranty (failure to fulfill the terms of a promise regarding the product's performance), misrepresentation (giving consumers a false sense of security about a product's safety), and strict liability (under which the product's defect, although not the fault of the defendant, rendered the product unreasonably dangerous and the defendant is therefore responsible).

A couple of weeks ago we highlighted some particularly egregious examples of inappropriate social media use in the courtroom, such as a judge sending a Facebook «like» request to one of the parties in a case she was ruling on, jurors polling their friends on Twitter regarding the guilt or innocence of the defendant in the case they were hearing, and the like.

(4) In a case in which the defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction regarding self - defense as an affirmative defense, the court shall allow the defendant to present evidence, when relevant, that he or she was acting in self - defensIn a case in which the defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction regarding self - defense as an affirmative defense, the court shall allow the defendant to present evidence, when relevant, that he or she was acting in self - defensin which the defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction regarding self - defense as an affirmative defense, the court shall allow the defendant to present evidence, when relevant, that he or she was acting in self - defensin self - defense.

Achieved dismissal of hostile work environment, retaliation and breach of implied contract claims, and dismissal of individual defendants (President and Vice President) in discrimination / harassments case, establishing law in our jurisdiction regarding personal liability of supervisors.

Until recently general jurisdiction over a defendant (i.e. jurisdiction over any lawsuit against a defendant without regard to the particular facts of the case) was present in any state where a company has a permanent office for the conduct of business, under half a century of precedent on the issue that traced back to a U.S. Supreme Court case known as International Shoe v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).

Existing statutory limits on federal court jurisdiction limit the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Courts in most cases of cases to cases in which a state court in the state where the U.S. District Court is located would have either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction of the defendant (without regard to the fact that the case might be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts as a matter of subject matter jurisdiction which pertains to the nature of the cause of action asserted rather than the ties of the defendant to the forum state).

The correct measure of damages in a case of conversion is that which will provide just compensation for loss suffered by the claimant having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, and so it is impossible to ignore the claimant's own conduct in relation to that loss, since, if he has failed to take advantage of an opportunity reasonably available to him to avoid it in whole or in part, it will be difficult for him to justify requiring the defendant to pay compensation for a loss that could not fairly be attributed to his wrongful act.

There is contention in the case law with regards to the need to disclose surveillance that a defendant does not intend to rely on.

Michigan court rules allow a defendant in any personal injury case, including an auto accident lawsuit, to have an independent medical expert examine the injured party and issue an opinion regarding the injuries.

In this case the defendants do not have a common or joint interest with the plaintiffs regarding the wills variation action.

During this initial case, the defendants discovered that the mother and sister were intentionally excluding the brother from being a plaintiff and had lied in their deposition testimony regarding his existence.

The firm will also take on cases regarding product liability and will go up against insurance companies and defendants in motorcycle accidents.

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

Other work included acting in a cosmetic surgery negligence case in which the defendant failed to provide clear advice regarding a minor intervention.

While victims» accounts regarding the effect of the crime provide relevant information for a sentencing judge, allowing victims to make a specific sentence recommendation seems unfairly prejudicial to the defendant and irrelevant, and the SJC's reasoning in this case does not go far enough in addressing these concerns.

In a Milwaukee case, a court appointed manager is asking the court to hold a defendant in contempt for failing to turn over records so the manager can do his job regarding the defendant's propertieIn a Milwaukee case, a court appointed manager is asking the court to hold a defendant in contempt for failing to turn over records so the manager can do his job regarding the defendant's propertiein contempt for failing to turn over records so the manager can do his job regarding the defendant's properties.

When a jury renders a verdict in a Florida car accident case, the jury's decision regarding the defendant's liability to the plaintiff is generally insulated from review, absent extraordinary circumstances.

The court added: «A further matter of concern is that the judge may have been left with the view that the officers of the first defendant [the BTP] had some suspicions about the honesty of the firm L simply because it had been instructed to act for MS.. But, as Keene LJ said in the Faisaltex case (at para 47) «A solicitor is not to be regarded as someone tainted and unreliable because, for example, he acts for someone charged with or convicted of a criminal offence.

The America Invents Act (AIA), key portions of which became effective in September, 2011, changed the procedural rules regarding joinder, or the number of defendants a plaintiff could sue in a single case.

This week the United States Supreme Court accepted for consideration the case of Foster v. Humphrey, regarding Georgia prosecutors» use of peremptory challenges to strike every black juror in the jury pool in the defendant's case.

However, whether or not an ATE insurance policy can offer the defendant «sufficient protection» will depend on the terms of the policy in question, particularly whether there are any provisions which may permit the insurer to avoid the policy in certain circumstances (for example, if it emerges in the course of the proceedings that the claimant withheld or misrepresented key information regarding the facts of the case from the insurer).

A fair hearing in accordance with Art 6 requires proper disclosure by the applicant to the defendant regarding the nature of the case against them.

Had the master had the benefit of the Phillips case, he would and should have regarded the balance as being swung in favour of the defendant's arguments about whether CPR 3.10 could be used at all in the circumstances.

He also acted in a # 14m mortgage fraud case, which followed a BBC Panorama investigation into corruption regarding a block of flats in south east London, in which all defendants were acquitted following a 10 - week trial.

Liability is rarely an issue in cases against John Doe defendants and in any regard, must be litigated in the first suit against the John Doe, if at all.

Further, as respecting possible modification, because of past issues of the defendant failing to comply with orders of the court; providing token compliance with orders of the court while ignoring the spirit and intent of the orders (including the orders dated December 1, 2010); the defendant's lengthy pattern of contemptuous conduct; the expenses and financial waste caused by the defendant; the substantial financial drain on the resources of the plaintiff and the guardian ad litem caused by the defendant; the pattern of parental alienation; prior false reports of abuse and / or neglect to governmental entities; and the need for repose on the part of the minor child, it is anticipated that in addition to satisfaction of the foregoing conditions, no modification motion is permitted to be filed by defendant regarding the sole physical and / or sole legal custody arrangements, except in the case of the plaintiff's total and permanent disability as determined by the Social Security Administration, unless the following conditions are satisfied...» Eisenlohr v. Eisenlohr, 2011 WL 1566201 at * 4 (Conn.Super.).