Sentences with phrase «favor of defendant nmfs»

The court affirmed the trial court judgment holding in favor of defendant because plaintiff failed to allege or show that: (1) landlord had actual knowledge or reason to know of the presence of chipping, peeling, and flaking lead paint and that such condition was hazardous, and (2) landlord was given reasonable opportunity to correct hazard.

In Brown v. Wheeler, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the trial court judgment holding in favor of defendant because plaintiff failed to allege or show that: (1) landlord had actual knowledge or reason to know of the presence of chipping, peeling, and flaking lead paint and that such condition was hazardous, and (2) landlord was given reasonable opportunity to correct hazard.

In Thompson v. DeKalb Board of REALTORS ®, the 11th Circuit addressed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant Board and MLS, dismissing plaintiffs» claim that the Federal antitrust laws are violated by the requirement that brokers be REALTORS ® to gain access to the Board's MLS.

After multi-day trial, obtained judgment defeating lease termination challenge together with substantial money judgment in favor of defendant against major golf retail company for non-compliance with lease.

A plaintiff appealed the lower court's grant of summary disposition under MCR 2.116 (C)(7) in favor of the defendant in a Michigan motorcycle accident case.

The court ruled in favor of the defendant.

The jury also found in favor of the defendant on the fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment claims, but awarded another $ 450,000 to plaintiff on his negligent misrepresentation claim and $ 10 million in punitives.

What happened below was that a trial judge erroneously failed to honor plaintiff's dismissal of an action, striking it and then going forward to award discovery sanctions and attorney's fees against plaintiff and in favor of the defendant.

Although many cases are settled before going to trial, our Columbus personal injury lawyers will discuss your appeal options with you and possibly seek outside consultation should a judge or jury rule in favor of the defendant.

The court agreed with the plaintiff, reversing a lower court that had granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant doctor.

The court gave judgment in favor of the defendant with costs.

San Francisco Partner Florence McClain, along with San Diego Appellate Practice Partners Jeffry Miller, Lann McIntyre, and Brittany Bartold Sutton, recently prevailed in an appeal from the judgment entered following a trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant in an asbestos suit.

The plaintiff thereupon brought his writ of error, and this court reversed the judgment given in favor of the defendant and remanded the case with directions to dismiss it because it did not appear by the transcript that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction.

San Bernardino Partner Art Cunningham and San Diego Appellate Partners Jeffry Miller, Ernest Slome, and Brittany Bartold Sutton recently prevailed in an appeal from the judgment entered following a trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant in a negligence suit.

Ultimately, the court found that the plaintiff did not establish a negligent design, and the case was decided in favor of the defendant.

Jurors decided the case in favor of defendant, finding he was not at - fault for her injuries.

Successfully obtained affirmation by U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, of a summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of defendant real estate partnership.

This is because the award of zero dollars may mean that the jury intended to find in favor of the defendant.

In rejecting the employer's arguments the judge, at paragraph 59, distinguished the case from earlier caselaw that had found in favor of the defendant employers, writing:

Special Properties v Woodruff 273 Mich App 586; 730 NW2d 753 (2007)(reversing trial court decision granting summary disposition to plaintiff and remanding for entry of judgment in favor of defendant on quiet title action)

A first responsive motion for summary dismissal of a legal malpractice claim was recently granted in favor of a Defendant - Lawyer represented by Lipson Neilson attorneys Phillip E. Seltzer and Shawn Grinnen.

The plaintiffs» product liability and negligence claims went to trial, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.

The Eighth Circuit United States Court of Appeals recently released an opinion affirming a jury verdict in favor of a defendant after a trial was held on the plaintiffs» allegations surrounding the death of their 23 - month - old son.

On appeal, the case was reversed in favor of the defendant.

After a five day trial, the case went to verdict and the jury found in favor of the defendant.

Ultimately, the appellate court determined that the trial court properly admitted the plaintiff's expert witness testimony yet was within its right to assign the evidence little weight and find in favor of the defendant.

The appellate court was tasked with determining if the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant was proper.

Summary Dismissal Victory Achieved by Phillip E. Seltzer and Shawn Grinnen In Defense of Lawyer on Claim of Legal Malpractice May 2017 — A first responsive motion for summary dismissal of a legal malpractice claim was recently granted in favor of a Defendant - Lawyer represented by Lipson, Neilson.

He has frequently been the lone dissenter, particularly in criminal cases where he writes in favor of the defendant, even when the arguments arrayed against his position are so formidable that his colleagues have joined the majority and moved on.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently reversed a lower court's decision to grant the plaintiffs a new trial in a negligence and premises liability lawsuit, and instead instructed the court to enter judgment in favor of the defendant as a matter of law.

The company's $ 9 million judgment was thus vacated in full and judgment was entered in favor of the defendant - brokers.

In 2013, there were 20 medical malpractice cases that went to trial, with 11 of those cases being decided in the favor of the defendant (meaning the doctor won at the trial level).

The trial court subsequently entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.

In Kalinchuk v. JP Sanchez Construction Co., a Texas plaintiff appealed summary judgment in favor of the defendant, a construction company.

If the jurors rated similarly situated attorneys equally, as one might expect, the lines on the graphs would appear as a perfect «X.» One would expect the defense attorneys to be rated significantly higher than the plaintiff attorneys when the juries return a verdict in favor of the defendant on all counts and the plaintiff attorneys to be rated significantly higher than the defense attorneys when the juries return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on all counts.

For example, on a scale of 1 = Excellent and 5 = Very Poor, jurors gave defense attorneys, on average, a competence score of 1.68 when they returned a verdict that was completely in favor of the defendant, 1.95 when they returned a split verdict, and 2.23 when they returned a verdict that was all in favor of the state / plaintiff.

The data was further analyzed based on three jury outcomes: (1) whether the jury returned a verdict that was entirely in favor of the state / plaintiff on all counts, (2) in favor of the defendant on all counts, or (3) there was a split decision.

The official verdict of «Robert Fletcher and Bartlow Gallery Ltd v. Peter Marryat Doig» was ruled in favor of defendant Peter Doig by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 3PM CDT.

The Judge not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he'd be put to death.

Gorsuch has received praise from defense lawyers and other legal experts for often intrepreting laws in favor of defendants, a tendency similar to that of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

I didn't say there was no inequality in the justice system, I said the media inflames when they use 1 case as a litmus test, especially when the system is stacked in favor of defendants.

Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Microsoft Corporation, Electronic Arts Inc., Harmonix Music Systems, Inc., Majesco Entertainment Co., Ubisoft Inc., and Nintendo of America Inc.'s (collectively «Defendants») on Plaintiff Richard J. Baker's («Baker») claims for infringement pursuant to the Court's ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS» MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (D.I. 135) dated January 3, 2017 and filed on January 4, 2017.

In Hawaii, TASC's case has already been dismissed with a report stating: that the judge's «ruling in favor of the Defendants has eviscerated TASC's claims.»

We conclude that neither that crime nor any similar one was foreseeable, and thus affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

Thus, regarding the claim for negligent breach of fiduciary duty, the Superior Court grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants was reversed.

U.S. District Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson was not swayed by Egilman's testimony in the least, granting summary dismissal of the case in favor of defendants and finding that «[T] here is nothing to support Dr. Egilman's conclusion that is at the heart of this case: that the vapors emitted from a microwave popcorn bag contain the same proportion of chemicals [as those emitted in popcorn factories] or that all of the substances in the two instances are identical.»

After a seven - day trial in which eight physicians testified, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants after deliberating for less than an hour.

After deliberating about 3 hours, the jury found in favor of the defendants, The Cochran Firm Atlanta saying Hutchins was not owed any money from The Firm.

The jury deliberated for almost eight hours before returning a verdict in favor of the defendants.

The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants early in the case proceedings, finding that the plaintiff could not sue the government for its alleged negligence, based on sovereign immunity grounds.