State Supreme Court Holds in
Favor of Plaintiff after Finding Defendant Withheld Information During Pre-Trial Discovery
In the case, Riley v. Ford Motor Company, the court determined that the trial judge properly adjusted the damages award in
favor of the plaintiff after the jury returned a shockingly inadequate amount.
Not exact matches
After an in - depth trial that lasted several, Administrative Law Judge Robert E. Meale ruled in
favor of Plaintiff Surfrider Foundation and denied the town
of Palm Beach a Joint Coastal Permit for the REACH 8 beach fill project because
of the potential to harm environmental and recreational resources.
After deliberation, the jury returned a general verdict in the defendant's
favor, finding that the defendant was not liable for any
of the
plaintiff's injuries.
After a trial lasting for five days, the jury returned a verdict in
favor of the
plaintiff.
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.
After phase I the jury returned a verdict in
favor of the
plaintiff for $ 200,000.
After a jury returned a verdict in
favor of the doctor in a medical malpractice case, an estate executor appealed on two questions
of abuse
of discretion: limitations on the scope
of questions during the defendant's deposition, and refusal
of jury instructions tendered by the
plaintiff.
After giving defendants a glimmer
of hope that Canadian class action law would become less
plaintiff - friendly, Canadian courts have more recently returned to their longstanding approach
favoring class actions.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, No. 15 - 1406 (SCOTUS April 18, 2017), clarified the standard to be used by district judges in imposing «inherent power
of the court to control judicial process» sanctions as far as setting an appropriate amount
of sanctions, reversing a $ 2.7 million sanctions award in
favor of plaintiff and against defendant Goodyear
after a case was settled.
Several days
after the court's ruling, a federal jury ruled in
favor of a different
plaintiff on a failure to warn claim.
A Dutch court classifies Bitcoin as a «transferable value»,
after it ruled in
favor of a
plaintiff who was owed 0.591 Bitcoins (BTC).
¶ 1
After purchasing a home in Enid, Oklahoma,
Plaintiff Jason Stauff (Buyer) filed an action alleging violations
of Oklahoma's Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act (Disclosure Act) and negligence against the sellers, real estate broker, and home inspectors.1 Buyer appeals a single trial court order granting 1) summary judgment in
favor of Defendants Kimberly Bartnick and her husband, Roy Bartnick (collectively the Bartnicks or Sellers) and also 2) the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to 12 O.S. 2011 2012 (B)(6) filed by Defendant Paramount Homes Real Estate Co. (Broker or Paramount).