Sentences with phrase «favor of defendant because»

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.

Not exact matches

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 was favored by businesses likely to be defendants in future class action lawsuits (such as manufacturers), because state civil procedure law in some U.S. states such as California, is more favorable to class action plaintiffs than federal civil procedure laws related to class actions.

Believing this evidence to be crucial to his case, Schaefer asked the court to enter judgment in his favor because the evidence had been in the sole control of the defendant, and it was their duty to preserve it.

The arbitrator granted summary disposition in favor of the defendants, finding that: (1) CHSI was not a proper respondent to the action and that Weirton failed to state claims against CHSI; (2) all of Weirton's claims, except for the breach - of - contract claim against Quorum, were barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel; (3) Weirton's breach - of - contract claim against Quorum was time - barred under the applicable Tennessee statute of limitations; (4) Weirton's tort claims were alternatively barred by the gist - of - the - action doctrine; and (5) Weirton's unjust enrichment claim was barred because of the parties» contracts (the «Second Award»).

Acting on a motion for summary judgment filed by Hueston Hennigan, U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick held that although courts «sparingly grant summary judgment in trademark cases because they are so fact - intensive,» the evidence here tilted so heavily in favor of the defendants as to make summary judgment appropriate.

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

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.

Court reversed trial court judgment in favor of plaintiffs, holding that defendants could not be held liable for conspiring to interfere with contractual relations because they were a party to the contract.