Sentences with phrase «favor of the defendant on»

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.

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.

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)

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.

Not exact matches

District Attorney Thomas P. Zugibe stated that on or about November 16, 2011, September 5, 2011, and September 4, 2011, defendant violated orders of protection in favor of his mother and father, and thereby caused physical injury to his mother, and damaged property belonging to his parents.

In particular, Caproni criticized Bharara's characterization of Albany — «politicians are supposed to be on the people's payroll, not on secret retainer to wealthy special interests they do favors for» — saying that it could be considered «a commentary on the character or guilt of the defendant.»

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 JanuarDefendants 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 JanuarDefendants») 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 JanuarDEFENDANTS» MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (D.I. 135) dated January 3, 2017 and filed on January 4, 2017.

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.

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.

Plaintiffs and defendant all filed motions for summary judgment, and on Feb. 2, U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan issued a memorandum ruling in favor of plaintiffs and an order permanently barring Public.Resource.Org from posting any of the plaintiffs» standards.

Notwithstanding the liberal «relation back» principles of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and despite the plaintiffs» claim of «fraudulent concealment,» the Appellate Practice Group secured an award of summary judgment in favor of all additional defendants based on the statute of limitations defense.

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.

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.

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.

On appeal, the case was reversed 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.

While not completely disposing of the lawsuit, a ruling by the court on individual issues in the injured party's favor may result in the defendant being more inclined to resolve the personal injury lawsuit short of trial by negotiating a just settlement.

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.

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.

In a case where the primary evidence against the defendant is the identification of an eyewitness, a defendant should be permitted to present expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness identification, whether or not there is additional corroborative evidence that could weigh in favor of guilt.

5 Jul. 28, 2014)(unpublished), is an interesting one involving affirmance of an arbitration award in favor of a well - known L.A. law firm and against a sophisticated ex-client defendant, especially focusing on a very broad arbitration clause allowing for fee recovery in any dispute and for a Trope waiver.

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.

On December 11, 2006, I'm scheduled to argue on behalf of defendants - appellants in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit a deliberate indifference to serious medical needs - prison conditions case from Bucks County, Pennsylvania that resulted in a $ 1.2 million jury award in favor of two pretrial detainees who contracted MRSA during their confinementOn December 11, 2006, I'm scheduled to argue on behalf of defendants - appellants in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit a deliberate indifference to serious medical needs - prison conditions case from Bucks County, Pennsylvania that resulted in a $ 1.2 million jury award in favor of two pretrial detainees who contracted MRSA during their confinementon behalf of defendants - appellants in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit a deliberate indifference to serious medical needs - prison conditions case from Bucks County, Pennsylvania that resulted in a $ 1.2 million jury award in favor of two pretrial detainees who contracted MRSA during their confinements.

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 defendant moves for security for costs against Bruno on the basis of two outstanding costs awards in his favor and on the basis that the action is frivolous and vexatious.

The list of factors suggesting a decision in favor of prosecution mainly contains criteria relating to the seriousness of the offense (for example, premeditation, a particularly vulnerable victim), whereas factors disfavoring prosecution include insignificant harm, expectation of a small penalty, negative effects of the prosecution on the victim's mental or physical health, and compensation paid by the defendant to the victim (Code for Crown Prosecutors, secs. 6.4, 6.5).

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.

I wonder if the defendant appreciates that, without any prompting or assistance from himself, this «kangaroo» system worked in his favor on this serious matter, despite his protests of inherent bias and privilege.

«Having found that [defendant] father and son relationship has been damaged by the alienation of the child toward the defendant, the next logical step is to determine what the court must do to correct the situation... «[Father's motion to modify from joint custody to sole legal custody in his favor, granted; prohibitions of various alienating behaviors on the part of mother and her family; restrictions on mother's attendance at doctor visits and parent - teacher conferences.

Summary judgment in favor of all defendants was entered on December 19, 1994.