Sentences with phrase «favor of the defendant as»

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.

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.

Not exact matches

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.

As also highlighted in both of these articles is that as one of the defendants» witnesses, the Superintendent of the Roswell Independent School District testified in favor of the state's modeAs also highlighted in both of these articles is that as one of the defendants» witnesses, the Superintendent of the Roswell Independent School District testified in favor of the state's modeas one of the defendants» witnesses, the Superintendent of the Roswell Independent School District testified in favor of the state's model.

If, as the defendant, you lose the case then a judgment will be rendered in favor of the plaintiff.

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.

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.»

House, which I think of as the innocence case, produced a 5 - 3 ruling in favor of a death row defendant's right to use DNA evidence to try to establish his innocence 20 years after his original conviction.

Hill, which I think of as the execution method case, produced an unanimous ruling in favor of a death row defendant's right to challenge a lethal injection protocol through a 1983 civil rights claim.

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.

In comments that «sentencing disparities are all in favor of the criminal» — this would seem to have a direct correlation to the 95 % position of Guilty Pleas induced by the Federal Justice system (as the risk of going to trial and having the full Advisory Guidelines heaped upon the defendant if found guilty, would in fact most likely lead to the full advisory sentence, and the dreaded upward departures for apparently exercising the constitutional right to go to trial (Hey!

Therefore, the court found, when the evidence was viewed in favor of the plaintiff, there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant driver failed to exercise ordinary care (the standard for Georgia ordinary negligence cases) in parking his truck in front of his home and was therefore potentially negligent.

As second chair counsel, Michael participated in Laclede Gas Company v. Park 370 Development, LLC, et al., where a St. Louis County Circuit Court jury ruled in favor of Dowd Bennett client Laclede Gas, finding the defendant, a land developer, liable for damages resulting from its excavation activity adjacent to a Laclede gas main.

The Indiana Court of Appeals recently reversed a trial court summary judgment favoring the defendant in a claim that originated as a premises liability lawsuit stemming from a trip - and - fall that seriously injured an 85 - year - old woman.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the individual defendants and judgment on the pleadings for the City as to the sexual harassment claims.

It is suggested, however, that this plea is not before us, and that, as the judgment in the court below on this plea was in favor of the plaintiff, he does not seek to reverse it, or bring it before the court for revision by his writ of error, and also that the defendant waived this defence by pleading over, and thereby admitted the jurisdiction of the court.

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.

A court of appeals in California recently released an opinion in a personal injury lawsuit that reversed a jury verdict in favor of a plaintiff who sustained injuries when he was struck by a vehicle being driven by an employee of the defendant as he returned from work.

The use of group affiliations, such as age, race, or occupation, as a «proxy» for potential juror partiality, based on the assumption or belief that members of one group are more likely to favor defendants who belong to the same group, has long been accepted as a legitimate basis for the State's exercise of peremptory challenges.

The trial court found in favor of the defendants, ruling that an upside - down bucket constituted an «open and obvious» danger and so there was no duty to warn the Prospective Buyer about the danger posed by using a bucket as a stair.

Borrowers are starting to file lawsuits against their mortgage lenders and banks are not only finding themselves as defendants in courtrooms across the country, they are also finding judges more than happy to rule against them and in favor of home owners and home loan borrowers.

In this request, the defendant is asking the judge to rule in his or her favor, arguing that there is no genuine issue of material fact in the controversy and as a matter of law, they should win.