Sentences with phrase «granted summary judgment of»

Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Domino's on five difference grounds.

District Court amended its original claim construction order based on the PTAB's ruling and granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Ford on the ground that the express disclaimer prevented the patent - in - suit from covering Ford's vehicles.

Not exact matches

Ebert argued the earlier agreements were invalid because they amounted to restraint of trade but Superior Court Justice Frederick Myers granted summary judgment in favour of Mars Canada in November 2016.

«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.»

Judge Elaine Slobod, of Orange County Supreme Court in upstate New York, granted partial summary judgment March 12 for Wah - chung Hsu, who once lived in the hamlet of Highland Mills, saying in court documents that Wyckoff was in breach of contract when it did not pay him severance after firing him.

The Federal District Court granted the defendant summary judgment, ruling that plaintiff's evidence did not meet a standard of «general acceptance» within the scientific community.

The District Court granted summary judgment to the school district, finding that state law did not bar the district's use of the racial tiebreaker and that the plan survived strict scrutiny on the federal constitutional claim because it was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.

(d) Intentional infliction of emotional distress The court granted the district's motion but denied the individual defendants» motion for summary judgment for this claim because of the boundaries of the state's governmental immunity legislation.

(c) Violation of 14th Amendment procedural due process The court granted the defendants» motion for summary judgment for this claim, finding that Ms. I did not meet the applicable precedent, which requires at the threshold an allegation that the reason for the forced discharge was to avoid a pre-termination hearing.

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.

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, 2017.

Causing heartburn for project applicants developing on tribal land, the Tenth Circuit reversed the District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma's grant of summary judgment and determined that the defendants» large - scale excavation project, involving site modification and the use of excavated rock and soil in the installation of wind turbines, constituted «mining» under federal regulations addressing mineral development on Native... Complete story»

We conclude that neither that crime nor any similar one was foreseeable, and thus affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the garage owners, on the grounds that the intervening criminal act of the plaintiff's kin was not foreseeable.

It examines activity for five judges over the past five years, showing the percentage of cases in which each judge granted or denied summary judgment motions and the average days it takes each judge to decide a case.

Summary judgment was granted; that decision was overturned on appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal; the franchisee then sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which was refused in 2010.

Thus, regarding the claim for negligent breach of fiduciary duty, the Superior Court grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants was reversed.

On appeal, the workers argued that there existed a genuine issue of material fact related to whether Zurich owed them a duty of care, and thus granting summary judgment in Zurich's favor was in error.

Represented Braintree Laboratories at the Federal Circuit to reverse a district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement for Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, following a patent dispute concerning Breckenridge's planned generic version of Braintree's SUPREP laxative drug.

Attorneys won affirmance of a grant of summary judgment in a putative medical monitoring class action arising out of alleged neighborhood exposure to beryllium dust and fumes from defendants» plant over the course of many decades.

CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, and because no issue of material fact exists for determination by a jury, it is axiomatic that summary judgment for Defendant should be granted.

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 of Appeal held that Warkentin, J., in granting summary judgment to the second lawyer, erred in failing to consider whether he had owed the plaintiffs a duty to advise them about the limitation period for suing the first lawyer, even though the written retainer between the plaintiffs and the second lawyer was restricted to an assessment of the first lawyer's account.

By order dated July 14, 2014, the motion judge, the Honourable Justice Martin S. James of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice sitting at Ottawa, granted Mr. Arnone's motion for summary judgment and ordered Best Theratronics to pay (i) damages equal to the gross amount of the salary Arnone would have earned until he qualified for an unreduced pension, less payments made to him to satisfy the statutory obligations of the employer, (ii) $ 65,000 representing the present value of the loss of an unreduced pension, (iii) a retirement allowance equal to 30 weeks» pay, and (iv) costs totaling $ 52,280.09.

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

It upheld the lower Court's granting of summary judgment on all counts with the exception of the G.L. c. 93A claim.

In Salvas v. Wal - Mart Stores, the SJC ruled that a trial court judge erred when he decertified the class action, excluded testimony from the plaintiffs» expert witness, and granted partial summary judgment in favor of Wal - Mart.

Appeals from the granting of a summary judgment motion go directly to the Court of Appeal, but appeals from the denial of such a motion go to the Divisional Court, and only then with leave.

For example, if some of the claims against some of the parties will proceed to trial in any event, it may not be in the interest of justice to use the new fact - finding powers to grant summary judgment against a single defendant.

In an order [PDF] filed on October 4, 2012, Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment dismissing Linda Eagle's claims that she had been damaged by her former employer's theft of her LinkedIn account.

In doing so, he said he felt comfortable falling in line with one judicial line of thought that says judges can make findings of fact in order to grant summary judgment.

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.

Finding that Veoh qualifies for protection under the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz granted summary judgment dismissing Universal's suit.

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.»

Thus, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

The moving defendants disputed this theory of liability on the basis that there was no causal connection that the light bulb caused the fire, and asked the Court to grant summary judgment in their favour.

In this slip and fall action, the trial court granted Appellee Wal - Mart's motion for summary judgment based on the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact that Wal - Mart had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition.In this slip and fall action, the trial court granted Appellee Wal - Mart's motion for summary judgment based on the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact that Wal - Mart had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition.

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.

The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the water company.

After examining the evidence, a state court granted summary judgment in favor of the restaurant.

Ultimately, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Bank because there was no evidence that Diaz ever provided medical clearance from a doctor that would allow her to return to work.

Barking Hound argued that the trial court erred in not granting summary judgment on this claim because the plaintiff had failed to present evidence that the deceased dog had actual market value, which Barking Hound contends is the sole form of damages recoverable.

The District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew, holding that its song was a parody that made fair use of the original song.

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 appellate court was tasked with determining if the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant was proper.

Thus, the court reversed the lower court's granting of summary judgment.

The issues in this application were whether the applicants were entitled to summary judgment on their harassment claim and whether the court should grant a permanent injunction pursuant to s. 3 (3) of the 1997 Protection Against Harassment Act.

The High Court (Burnley District Registry) has granted summary judgment on claims brought against NHS East Lancashire under the Public Contracts Regulations 2006, judging them to have been brought out of time.