Sentences with phrase «favor of the plaintiff for»

A jury having been waived, the lower court, Eastern District of Louisiana, found that the word «Tabasco,» as applied to pepper sauce, was generic and indicated quality, ingredients and place of origin of the pepper from which it was made and rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff for damages.

After phase I the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $ 200,000.

Jury verdict in favor of plaintiff for $ 6,000,000.

Not exact matches

When the International Trade Court ruled in favor of plaintiffs Suniva and SolarWorld in their case against cheap Chinese solar module and cell imports, reactions were polarized: the U.S. solar industry was outraged — as it had been for most of the duration of the court investigation — and investors, apparently, were extremely upbeat for the future of this same outraged industry, sending solar stocks sky - high.

A number of witnesses were to testify in favor of a marriage equality plank in the platform: Marc Solomon, national campaign director for Freedom to Marry; Allison Herwitt, legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign; Army Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan, a lesbian New Hampshire guardsman with stage - four incurable breast cancer and a plaintiff in Servicemembers Legal Defense Network's lawsuit against the Defense of Marriage Act; Michael Macleod - Ball, the American Civil Liberties Union's chief of staff for the Washington Legislative Office; and Aaron Zellhoefer, a gay delegate to the Democratic National Convention representing the National Stonewall Democrats.

Oregon's system of paying for education has undergone challenges in court four times, but the state courts have never ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in 2014, finding that five long - standing teacher job protections, including a two - year probationary period for new teachers and a layoff system based on how many years one's been teaching, violated students» constitutional right to an equal education.

Their false claims highlight the importance of remembering the facts in this case — the same facts that laid the ground for the landmark 2014 ruling in favor of the student plaintiffs and helped deliver a win for all of California's six million public school students.

The courts must act and rule in favor of the plaintiffs — it must declare what is happening is legally wrong and join the demand for a just remedy so every child in PA has an opportunity to learn.

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, 20for 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, 20FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (D.I. 135) dated January 3, 2017 and filed on January 4, 2017.

Plaintiff seeks summary judgment in his favor on the issue of liability for copyright infringement.

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.

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.

On Oct. 5, 2015, Superior Court Judge Raymond M. Cadei in Sacramento, Calif., entered the stipulated judgment against Bluford in favor of the married plaintiffs who turned to Bluford and another company of his, California Legal Pros, for help evicting a tenant from a home they owned in Discovery Bay, Calif., only to be defrauded out of more than half a million dollars.

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» 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» plaintiffs and an order permanently barring Public.Resource.Org from posting any of the plaintiffs» plaintiffs» standards.

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.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and awarded him damages for past and future medical expenses, but not for past or future pain and suffering.

Given that ambiguities are to be construed in favor of preserving the insurance coverage that the insured paid for, the Plaintiff should prevail.

As a result, the court reversed the granting of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, explaining that the plaintiff would need to file a personal injury lawsuit to establish the insurance company's liability for her future medical expenses.

Lead trial counsel for plaintiffs in both the preliminary and final injunction hearings of Evans v. Romer, a successful suit challenging the constitutionality of a widely - publicized amendment to Colorado's constitution that would have prohibited any legislation protecting against discrimination based on sexual orientation; case received nationwide press coverage in broadcast and print media, including live coverage on Court TV, and was ultimately decided in plaintiffs» favor in the U. S. Supreme Court.

If you are a defendant in a civil case and failed to appear, a warrant will not be issued for your arrest, but the court will find in favor of the plaintiff.

The jury deliberated for five hours before returning a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

$ 35,000 judgment in favor of corporate plaintiff for Defendant corporation's failure to pay for flood remediation services.

$ 85,000 Verdict in favor of steel fabricator Plaintiff in a breach of contract action against Defendant for failure to pay for steel used in the creation of a United Airlines Terminal vestibule at O'Hare Airport.

The final portion of this opinion that a three - judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued today contains an interesting discussion of the potential for overlap between a jury's award of damages for emotional distress and what a jury might have awarded had it been advised (as it should have been but was not at the original trial) that an award of punitive damages in favor of the plaintiff was appropriate.

On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff.

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.

After a trial lasting for five days, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

The jury deliberated for 2 1/2 hours before returning a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Recently, the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed a lower court's judgment in favor of a car accident defendant whose attorneys repeatedly raised the question of a plaintiff's «motive» for filing the claim in the first place, repeatedly insinuating — despite a lack of conviction or even formal accusation — that plaintiff had committed workers» compensation insurance fraud.

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.

Rules are tagged with the court and jurisdiction, stage of case for disposition, date, and indication of whether the rule was applied in favor of the plaintiff or defendant.

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)

Arbitrator found in favor of plaintiff - contractor (client) in private binding arbitration involving unpaid fees with counterclaim for alleged construction defects totaling over $ 800,000.

Plaintiffs were awarded $ 28 million in damages under the Torture Victim Protection Act by a Florida jury in 2016, which found that Barrientos, currently a U.S. citizen, was responsible for the torture and death of Jara in September 1973 during the Chilean coup d'état overthrowing President Salvador Allende in favor of Pinochet.

Served as lead counsel for plaintiff in medical industry in patent infringement lawsuit; judgment in favor of firm client

It does make it more difficult for some jurors to render a verdict in favor of the plaintiff where the pictures of the car don't really show that «someone must have been hurt in the crash.»

Arbitration agreements are generally claimed to be used to simplify the resolution of claims for both parties, but arbitration tends to favor defendants over plaintiffs.

The jury had decided the case in favor of plaintiff, who alleged negligence, negligence per se and intentional infliction of emotional distress, concluding also that defendant nursing home had acted with reckless disregard for the rights of others, resulting in a $ 10,000 punitive damage award tacked onto the $ 1.2 million in compensatory damages.

Atlantic City, N.J., jurors ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Linda Gross, and ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $ 11.11 million for failing to warn and making fraudulent misrepresentations about its transvaginal mesh product, Bloomberg reported.

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.

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 Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated an adverse jury verdict and remanded for the entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of Kim's client on the basis that the trial court failed to make the threshold determination of whether an absolute privilege applied to the hospital's use of the plaintiff's confidential personnel file at a labor relations hearing involving unionization of nurses.

The driver's insurance company was in a weak negotiating position because it was clear that the driver would make a bad witness in front of a jury because she expressed no willingness to take responsibility for her actions which increased the likelihood of a large verdict in the plaintiff's favor.

In the first comprehensive appellate decision interpreting Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1042.3 - 1042.6, Pennsylvania's tort reform measure intended to increase the threshold of merit for professional liability actions, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded for the entry of judgment as a matter of law in favor of John's client, a physician, based upon the plaintiff's failure to file a certificate of merit in support of his medical malpractice claim.

The article points out that although the three decisions have potential to spell disaster for class action plaintiffs given the conservative majority in the Supreme Court, two of the three class - action - related decisions last term came out in favor of the plaintiffs.

If the court decides that the intervenors don't have standing to appeal, the court could resolve the case in favor of the plaintiffs without granting much room for the Supreme Court to take the case and reverse it.

That conclusively appears from the fact that this Court holds that there was no basis for a finding by the jury in favor of the plaintiff.

As plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim, are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction, and that the balance of equities and public interest favor an injunction, the court will grant plaintiffs» request to enjoin Proposition 65's warning requirement for glyphosate.

A canny plaintiff will exploit differences between courts in her favor — differences in how they enforce certain rules, for example, or in their track records with a type of case.