Sentences with phrase «grant summary judgment as»

With no discovery on the claim, she was not prepared when the court ruled from the bench that it would grant summary judgment as to her hostile work environment claim.

Not exact matches

«Because there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Sulyma had actual knowledge of the facts comprising claims I and III, as well as knowledge of the disclosures he alleges were unlawfully inadequate in claims II and IV, the Court grants defendants» motion for summary judgment on those claims, finding them time - barred,» Cousins wrote in his opinion.

For instance, the judge granted summary judgment against the NCAA on its argument that scholarship rules «improve [e] the quality of the collegiate experience for student - athletes, other students, and alumni by maintaining the unique heritage and traditions of college athletics and preserving amateurism as a foundational principle, thereby distinguishing amateur college athletics from professional sports, allowing the former to exist as a distinct form of athletic rivalry and as an essential component of a comprehensive college education.»

«The state Supreme Court had already granted our request for summary judgment determining that Trump and his University are liable for operating illegally in New York as an unlicensed educational institution.»

A state judge said she won't grant summary judgment to New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office as it pursues its fraud case against Donald Trump.

Two criteria must be met before summary judgment may be properly granted: (1) there must be no genuine issues of material fact, and (2) the Movant must be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

In the absence of expert testimony, there was no triable issue of material fact as to whether a defect in the speed control deactivation switch installed on a pickup truck was the proximate cause of a fire that damaged a brake shop, a federal court in Mississippi ruled, granting the pickup truck maker's motions for summary judgment on the business owner's products liability and negligence claims (the latter of which was subsumed by the products liability claim), and on the punitive damages claim (Mildemont, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., January 13, 2017, Ozerden, H.).

The Court granted summary judgment for the Defendants as to all Counts of Plaintiff's Complaint.

17 As a result of this asymmetry, the court that makes the most authoritative pronouncements on the standard for granting summary judgment — the Court of Appeal — tends to do so in cases where the motions court has denied the complainant her day in court.

On Wednesday, the FDA campaign may have died out altogether, as U.S. District Judge Richard Leon granted summary judgment in favor of five tobacco companies who objected that the proposed warnings would violate their free speech rights, cost millions of dollars to print and require them to feature anti-smoking advocacy more prominently than their own brands.

Judge Reiss granted the defendants» motion for summary judgment, finding that «the only reasonable interpretation of that language is that it requires Killington Ltd. to provide the designated passholder free use of all ski lifts operated by Killington Ltd. at the Killington Ski Area so long as it operates in that area... «The term corporation, she wrote, «clearly refers to the named corporations, Sherburne and Killington Ltd.» and «reveals no intention to bind Killington Ltd's successors... To the contrary, Killington Ltd.'s obligations under the passes clearly terminate with its cessation of operations in the area.»

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.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Sullivan has granted summary judgment in favor of Capitol Records in its infringement suit against online digital music reseller ReDigi, which bills itself as «The World's First Pre-Owned Digital Marketplace.»

The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment in Defendants» favor as to all claims resulting in a complete defense for the clients.

The court thus concluded that «ReServe It,» «ReServe It 2.0,» «ReServe Gateway,» «ReServe University,» and «ReServe Cloud» are unenforceable as a matter of law and granted Reserve summary judgment on EFI's trademark infringement claims as to those marks.

In his decision to grant summary judgment in favour of the Claimants, in the above named conjoined matters, Mr Justice Eder leaves no room for doubt that judges in England take pre trial conduct very seriously indeed and will regard a «snub» by foreign parties, even public authorities, as a direct offence to the authority of the English court.

The plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant driver was negligent in parking the truck on the street in front of his home, considering the prior accident.

As a result, the court reversed a lower court's decision granting summary judgment in the plaintiff's favor.

The District Court granted summary judgment to the individual defendants, finding that they had absolute immunity for their legislative acts and that the ordinances and resolutions adopted by the council did not constitute an official policy of harassment, as alleged by petitioners.

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 denying summary judgment to GE and granting summary judgment to Boston Edison, the Court found that: (1) while the construction work performed by GE met the definition of an improvement to real property for purposes of the statute of repose, public policy considerations necessitated an exception to the application of the statute in cases involving alleged asbestos - related disease; (2) the installation of asbestos insulation was not an abnormally dangerous activity; (3) Boston Edison did not exercise sufficient control over the work at issue to be held negligent; and (4) a premises owner, such as Boston Edison, has no duty to warn where the subcontractor has knowledge of the hazard which is equal to or greater than that of the premises owner.

The federal district court in Las Vegas erred in granting summary judgment to patent infringement defendant DigiDeal as to certain cancelled claims (upon reexamination by the USPTO) of U.S. Patent No. 7,523,935 because suits based upon cancelled claims must be dismissed for

Accordingly, the judge granted the motion for summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages and left the plaintiff's negligence claim as the sole remaining issue for trial.

Although the additional time that the federal judges took to make decisions is not dispositive of the result, it adds to the possibility that state judges viewing the heavy burden on summary judgment were and are less willing to grant these motions as a threshold matter and instead prefer to let cases proceed to trial or settlement.112 By contrast, the federal judges who take more time in coming to decisions may put more weight on the summary judgment motions if they are, on the balance, more willing to grant them.

U. L. Rev. 369, 438 (1992)(finding that attorneys who removed cases from state to federal court «most often cited summary judgment availability as their reason for removal» to federal court, and that the attorneys perceived «a greater willingness of the federal judiciary to grant summary judgment motions» as well as «organizational impediments limiting the ability of the state court judges to issue summary judgment rulings»).

As a result, federal court judges have a stronger personal incentive to grant summary judgment than some of their state court counterparts.93 Finally, federal courts have more resources at their disposal than state courts and are therefore in a better position to invest the significant judicial resources often required to decide a motion for summary judgment.94

On the subsequent appeal, the Court of Appeal noted that summary judgment for divorce should not be granted where it would result in the other spouse losing benefits such as health insurance coverage prior to the determination of the corollary relief issues.

For additional sources asserting that federal courts grant summary judgment more frequently than state courts, see Howard B. Stravitz, Recocking the Removal Trigger, 53 S.C. L. Rev. 185, 185 n. 1 (2002)(«[F] ederal courts are more likely to grant summary judgment to defendants»); JoEllen Lind, «Procedural Swift»: Complex Litigation Reform, State Tort Law, and Democratic Values, 37 Akron L. Rev. 717, 769 (2004)(differing state and federal summary judgment standards «make it much more likely that a defendant in federal court will obtain summary judgment than a defendant in state court»); Kristen Irgens, Wisconsin Is Open for Business or Business Just As Usual?

If we treat grants in part as moving party successes, defendants in Cecil's study who moved for summary judgment succeeded 69.4 % of the time, and plaintiffs succeeded 48 % of the time.

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.

U.S. District Judge Ruben Castillo granted Klinger's bid for summary judgment in December, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed his ruling, following Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner's characterization of the estate's argument as a «very aggressive attempt to enlarge copyright law» during oral arguments.

A motion for summary judgment may be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 if the entire record demonstrates that «there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and · · · the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.»

However, as was the case above, if there is a question or dispute regarding a material fact, the court can not grant a summary judgment motion to either side.

A Motion Judge grants summary judgment dismissing the Appellant's action as against the Respondents (County of Simcoe Paramedic Services, Paramedic J. Doe, nine doctors, and Barrie Medical Clinics Inc.).

1426 (N.D.Cal.1996)(«Bernstein I»), and subsequently granted summary judgment to Bernstein on his First Amendment claims, holding the challenged ITAR regulations facially invalid as a prior restraint on speech, see Bernstein v. U.S. Department of State, 945 F.Supp.

As it promised it would, The Authors Guild Appeal initiated an appeal of Justice Denny Chin's judgment (which substantially dismissed The Authors Guild's summary judgment motion and granted Google's motion).

As a result, the motion judge granted summary judgment in favour of L'Image Enterprises for the amount claimed with

[25] Turning then to the substance of the second ground of appeal, the appellants submit that granting partial summary judgment on the misrepresentation issue provides minimal, if any, efficiency as the action is proceeding to trial on the negligence, breach of contract, and Arthur Wishart Act claims.

The hospital ultimately moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, finding that: (1) the technologist did not act within the scope of her duties, as is necessary for the hospital to be vicariously liable for the technologist's conduct; (2) the plaintiffs failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support a finding of intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (3) none of the plaintiffs suffered actual damages as a result of the technologist's conduct.

The court also granted the joint motion for partial summary judgment as to the count for partial disclosure and use of the proprietary formula.

(Combined Air was an excellent example of how r. 20 has been neutered each time it has been upgunned over the decades: a promising start, then more and more and more decisions that expanded the list of situations in which summary judgment wasn't to be granted; Karabus and Tjaden very accurately cite this tendency as «interpretive erosion».)

The defendants were not entitled to reconsideration of the court's decision to grant summary judgment to the plaintiff on the issue of his contributory negligence, as their proposed grounds amounted to mere disagreement with the court's earlier conclusions.

The court reversed the granting of summary judgment as to Karen's hostile work environment claim.

As for defendants that are granted permission to file a motion for summary judgment, those motions are successful only 18 % of the time (the national average is 31 %).

The court granted partial summary judgment as it found that the compilation in question had the requisite level of originality to provide copyright protection.

Attorneys for Zillow filed a motion late last week asking the judge to grant summary judgment in its favor as a matter of law — referring to a recent 9th Circuit Court decision in the case Perfect 10 Inc. v. Giganews Inc. — before the jury is permitted to issue a verdict.

Coldwell Banker Village Green Realty v. Pillsworth (32 A.D. 3rd 568 [3rd Dept.]-RRB-- Order of the Supreme Court granting broker's motion for summary judgment affirmed; in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the broker's right to a commission is not contingent upon performance of the underlying real estate contract, receipt by the seller of the sale price, transfer of title, or even a formal execution of a legally enforceable sales contract; seller could not utilize the provisions of a subsequently executed sales contract wherein seller agreed to pay broker's commission «if and when title closes» as a bootstrap to avoid her obligation to the broker under the clear and unambiguous provisions of the listing agreement as such language was contained in the contract of sale prepared by counsel and to which broker was not a party; provisions in listing agreement that seller would accept a binder or purchase contract contingent upon purchaser's ability to obtain conventional financing and provided any other contingencies in the binder or purchase agreement are acceptable to the seller speak only to the type of purchase offer that seller was obligated to accept and does not alter or otherwise qualify broker's right to a commission

Sutton and Edwards v. Samuels (187 A.D. 2d 501) denial of summary judgment for broker reversed and summary judgment granted as to one defendant; broker makes sufficient showing of tortious interference with brokerage contract, produced a ready, willing and able buyer and, but for defendant's conduct, it would have earned a commission.

Day Realty v. Spiegel (216 A.D. 2D 241) order granting broker's motion for summary judgment reversed; issue of fact raised precluding summary judgment as to whether or not commission agreement conditioned the earning of the commission upon the closing of the sales transaction.

Hill Realty Services v. Cummings (244 A.D. 2d 525)-- owner's cross-motion for summary judgment granted and affirmed where broker produced two purchasers for owner's property but there was never a meeting of the minds as to several material terms of the sale; broker failed to proffer evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to allegations of seller's bad faith.