Sentences with phrase «found against the plaintiff»

The jury found against the plaintiff on the breach of contract claim and found for our client on its counterclaims for fraud and misrepresentation.

After obtaining a jury's favorable answer to whether plaintiff's physical condition was a substantial motivating reason for his termination, the jurors found against plaintiff on whether the conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to plaintiff.

«While it is true that in his December 17, 2004 order, Judge Testa found that defendant improperly alienated her daughters» affections toward their father, in that same order the judge made similar findings against plaintiff.»

Not exact matches

An Albany County state supreme court justice has ruled against plaintiffs from eight «small city school districts» who contended that the state has failed to adequately fund them in light of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit that almost a decade ago found that New York City schools had been systemically shortchanged when it came to state aid.

The plaintiffs, Students Matter — a nonprofit founded by Silicon Valley entrepreneur David Welch — filed the Vergara lawsuit against the State of California, its Department of Education and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

«These unsubstantiated allegations stem from a single lawsuit filed against us by a single plaintiff who claims that levels of lead were found in three of our products that could be dangerous to pet health.

Plaintiff's counsel falsely describes these reports as «a series of investigations and exonerations of Dr Mann» (pages 5 and 6 of January 18th memorandum), and falsely states that four university inquiries and five governmental agencies on both sides of the Atlantic have «conducted separate and independent investigations into the allegations of scientific misconduct against Dr Mann», and that «all of the above investigations found that there was no evidence of any fraud, data falsification, statistical manipulation, or misconduct of any kind by Dr Mann».

Hansen helped connect Olson with another child plaintiff previously, when Olson was looking to find children who would act as plaintiffs in a lawsuit against government agencies.

We, the Jury, now find for the Plaintiff, [Sienkowski], and find against the Defendant, [Verschuure], in the sum of:

An Ontario Superior Court justice has found that the class action lawsuit brought against Deloitte LLP by lawyers who had reviewed documents for the firm constituted a success for the plaintiff class, and he has granted the representative plaintiff for the class a cost award.

(2) Exceptionally, a plaintiff may succeed by showing that the defendant's conduct materially contributed to risk of the plaintiff's injury, where (a) the plaintiff has established that her loss would not have occurred «but for» the negligence of two or more tortfeasors, each possibly in fact responsible for the loss; and (b) the plaintiff, through no fault of her own, is unable to show that any one of the possible tortfeasors in fact was the necessary or «but for» cause of her injury, because each can point to one another as the possible «but for» cause of the injury, defeating a finding of causation on a balance of probabilities against anyone.

Ultimately, however, the court ruled against the plaintiffs, finding no aiding or abetting on the part of the sender.

Founding partner Henry Fenton successfully defended a psychoanalyst against claims made by a plaintiff alleging the psychoanalyst violated the California...

More specifically, the Court found that the defendants failed to properly investigate the allegations made against the plaintiff, and published them knowing them to be false.

Only three days after Judge Kaplan's spectacular ruling in the Chevron / Ecuador case, notes Paul Barrett at Business Week, «a state appellate court in California upheld a trial judge's finding that what had been billed as a watershed liability verdict against Dole Food over pesticide use in Nicaragua was actually the product of a corrupt conspiracy by plaintiffs» lawyers.»

Justice Lauwer declined to make a finding of negligence against the solicitor, ruling instead that the plaintiff's action was statute barred.

The judge also commented upon the unsuccessful allegations of just cause made against the plaintiff which he had asserted led to his inability to find new employment.

The judge then multiplies each parties» percentage of fault against the total damages and that is the amount they must pay, or the amount the plaintiff can not recover if found to be at fault.

Like Niro, Grossman has had a string of victories representing plaintiffs in patent and trademark suits, most recently in November when he won a $ 21 million verdict against Sears, Roebuck and Co. after a jury found that the retail giant misappropriated the trade secrets of a Wisconsin carpenter and the family business he started in his basement three decades ago.

The court found that the plaintiff did not allege in her amended complaint that the second defendant received notice of the action, or that it knew or should have known that the action would be brought against it.

With this case, Canadian law has rightly provided protection against defamation to an individual subjected to repeated published attacks on her reputation that were not only false as found by the jury's findings of defamation, but which specifically defamed the plaintiff based on her status as a member of a racialized group.

And now that Mason won't make good on his offer, Kolodziej has found another job — that of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against Mason, seeking $ 1 million.

In the first federal trial over Hurricane Katrina damage, a Louisiana jury ruled against State Farm insurance company Wednesday, finding that wind, not water, destroyed the New Orleans home of plaintiffs Michael and Judy Kodrin.

One explanation for what happened, of course, is that the trial judge realized that finding fault against the no - longer - a-party alleged wrongdoer would decrease the plaintiffs» recovery, maybe significantly enough to make a difference - in a case where the judge had decided that the plaintiff should recover a substantial amount — and this subconsciously affected the trial judge's analysis of principle.

In the Judicial Review decision, the Court made a number of strong findings against the Faculty, including that it had acted in a biased and «grossly unfair» manner toward the plaintiff.

The Court of Appeal found in Harris v. Levine that the plaintiff's suit against his former criminal defence counsel was an abuse of process because in order to succeed, the plaintiff would have had to prove that but for the solicitor's negligence, he would not have been convicted.

The plaintiff then moved before Rady, J. for an order setting aside the order of Templeton, J., and to commence a new action against solicitor B. Rady, J. dismissed both motions, and found the plaintiff to be in contempt of court.

The jury found for the plaintiff and awarded 20 weeks salary in damages, the amount specified in her employment contract, $ 200,000 in aggravated damages against the employer for the manner of dismissal, and $ 1,000,000 in punitive damages.

[158] I find that it is not an abuse of process for the plaintiff to seek civil damages against the defendant when the defendant had previously been acquitted of criminal charges.

As a result of this finding, the lower courts» rulings were reversed, and the plaintiff's case against the local chapter may proceed to trial.

The trial judge had found that, instead of telling the plaintiff what was expected of him and giving him a reasonable opportunity to respond to the criticisms against him, the responsible Xerox manager became «more authoritarian, impatient and intolerant» and «subsequently acted impulsively and without justification.»

The Court held that it need not find a «special relationship» between Crane Co. and Ms. Jones to impose a duty because the plaintiffs allegations were based upon Crane Co.'s own alleged misfeasance in utilizing asbestos - containing products and not on an alleged failure of Crane Co. to protect against the actions of a third - party tortfeasor.

In BOWERS vs. P. WILE»S, INC the court found that «where the manner of operation of a business creates a reasonably foreseeable risk of a hazardous condition, the approach permits a plaintiff to recover for injuries resulting from such conditions if the plaintiff establishes that the business did not take all «adequate steps» reasonably necessary under the circumstances to protect patrons against that risk».

The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against that driver but later found out that he did not carry auto insurance.

After a six - week trial during the summer of 2013 where the Plaintiff alleged damages of over $ 2 billion, the jury unanimously found no liability against Toshiba.

In addressing the plaintiff's case, the court found that the Department of Transportation could be held liable only if the plaintiff could prove that the Department had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition for a sufficient amount of time prior to the time of the accident so that measures could have been taken to protect against the dangerous condition.

The Superior Court vacated a large judgment against Kim's client and remanded for the entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish the store had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly defective condition.

Successfully represented Plaintiff in medical malpractice claim where Court found against physician for negligently performing a plastic surgery (Penticostes v. La Fontaine Medical Group)

Against defendant landlord manager, the jury awarded $ 2,153.03 against manager on the negligent claim, but found for her on the remaining claims which survived a nonsuit motion (with the jury finding for the defense on the statutory ordinance eviction claim asserted by plainAgainst defendant landlord manager, the jury awarded $ 2,153.03 against manager on the negligent claim, but found for her on the remaining claims which survived a nonsuit motion (with the jury finding for the defense on the statutory ordinance eviction claim asserted by plainagainst manager on the negligent claim, but found for her on the remaining claims which survived a nonsuit motion (with the jury finding for the defense on the statutory ordinance eviction claim asserted by plaintiffs).

The trial judge found in favour of the Plaintiff in a claim against the otolaryngologist.

Following one week trial, obtained defense judgment finding that business plaintiff failed to prove causation of any damages in misappropriation of trade secrets case where default judgment had been entered against defendants when represented by predecessor counsel.

On Tuesday, May 29, 2012, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari from the Tenth Circuit's decision in Marx v. General Revenue Corp., U.S. No. 11 - 1175, to determine whether a prevailing defendant can be awarded routine costs (not attorney's fees) against a losing plaintiff in a Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA) case where the plaintiff was found to have brought the suit in good faith.

An abuse of process has traditionally only been found where two actions are brought by the same plaintiff against the same defendant seeking the same relief.

Although I made a finding that both his alcohol consumption and anxiety had significant impacts on his life following the accident, the plaintiff suggests he should not be faulted for failing to guess that those factors would be essentially held against him when making a conclusion about whether he had a brain injury or not.

Finding that it did not, the court dismissed the plaintiff's lawsuit against the school.

Court Finds That Plaintiff's Lawsuit Against Truck Manufacturer Failed to Establish Design Defect

This reminds me of the electronic evidence cases like In Re Vinhnee (US — 9th circ in bankruptcy) where the judge took it upon himself to examine the technical witness of the plaintiff (American Express) and find the explanation of the information security practices inadequate, and as as a result threw out Amex's collection suit against its customer, who had not even bothered to show up.

«Everyone agrees that conversion is historically a tort against a person's interest in a chattel, being derived from the action for trover, which included a fictitious allegation that the plaintiff had lost the chattel and that the defendant had found it.

In 2012, the Ontario Superior Court found that «none of the plaintiff's allegations against the Defendant provide a legal footing on which he can base his claim to damages.»

Despite finding there would be no prejudice to the defendant if he set aside the dismissal, the judge decided against reinstating the plaintiff's claim.