Sentences with phrase «held against the plaintiff»

Not exact matches

It is the first defendant to settle and agreed to help the plaintiffs with their case against the remaining defendants, which are American Airlines Group (aal), Delta Air Lines (dal) and United Continental Holdings (ual).

NEW ORLEANS, April 20, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE)-- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC («KSF») and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until May 4, 2018 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Atlas Financial Holdings, Inc. (NasdaqGM: AFH), if they purchased the Company's securities between March 13, 2017, and March 2, 2018, inclusive (the «Class Period»).

On the threats of a legal action against the EC, O. B Amoah held the view that, the plaintiffs may hit a snag because the EC appears to have acted within the ambit of the law as it clearly spelled out the criteria for the candidates.

The court held that the Plaintiff has made more than sufficient references to the specific allegations, the dates and times were made plus the specific radio / media platforms on which the allegations were made by Defendants against the Plaintiff.

He said, «The trial judge distinguished the Lagos State case from the present one, and held that whereas the court of Appeal so held against Lagos State environmental sanitation days on the ground of same not being a creation of law thus could not be enforced against the plaintiff therein, whereas the Oyo State environmental sanitation days are held pursuant to the provisions of the Oyo State Environmental Law of 2012, 2015, and regulations made thereunder, making the Oyo State exercise legal and constitutional unlike the scenario created in the Lagos case.

Appeal from judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Mark D. Fox, Magistrate Judge), which held that defendant Board of Education of the Newburgh Enlarged City School District intentionally discriminated against plaintiff Santina Polera in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and awarded damages to plaintiff.

The Plaintiff asserts the following: She was drugged, held against her will, sexually assaulted, photographed and battered and further injured upon her attempting to escape.

In Bristol - Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, No. 16 - 466 (June 19, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state court does not generally have specific personal jurisdiction to entertain class - action claims by non-resident plaintiffs against a company headquartered outside of the forum state (here Bristol - Myers Squibb was not based in California).

Mercury has been served as a purported UM carrier and Plaintiff is seeking to hold Mercury liable to satisfy all or a portion of any judgment which might be rendered against Defendant in this matter.

While Quebec is consulting and holding public hearings on euthanasia and assisted suicide, on April 26, 2011, British Columbia's Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) and three other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in BC's Supreme Court challenging Canada's Criminal Code provisions against euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The plaintiff responded by explaining that it was not her intention to release the utility commission from liability and that the court should not hold this mistake against her.

Eagle Harbor Holdings / Medius v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 3:11 - cv -05503-BHS (W.D. Washington 2015)-- Successfully defended Ford in patent infringement trial in which plaintiff asserted several patents against Ford's SYNC infotainment system and» automatic parking system.

Tuck v. Supreme Holdings Ltd. et al. 2014 NLTD (G) 131 Evidence — Limitation of Actions — Practice Summary: The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendants on February 28, 2012, to recover damages allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle collision that occurred... [more]

Holding: On a motion for sanctions against respondent opposing plaintiff's counsel for failure to convey a settlement offer, the court may after dismissing substantive claims retain jurisdiction to...

Although the two plaintiffs in these cases may have had legitimate claims and very real injuries, they were not compensated for any damages and were not able to hold any wrongdoers accountable because they did not comply with Maryland's strict law governing lawsuits against local government entities.

In Ferrara v. Lorenzetti, Wolfe6, the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal (Laskin and Sharpe, J.J.A.) held the plaintiff's claim against the defendant solicitor was NOT statute barred.

The Court of Appeal held that where the plaintiff was injured in an accident in July, 2006, the limitation period for his claim against his OPCF 44R insurer was governed by ss.

In another decision involving a claim against criminal counsel, Stevenson J. held that the plaintiff's malpractice action against his former criminal defence counsel was an abuse of process.

It held that a litigation funding agreement did not violate the rule against champerty and maintenance and indeed helped to provide access to justice to the plaintiff.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgement to have the claims dismissed as against the directors and the holding companies on the basis that they were not employers of the plaintiff and therefore have no place in the action for wrongful dismissal.

PC -2008-1134, Judge Sarah Taft - Carter held that while the existence of such a duty is determined on a case - by - case basis, the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to establish that Crane Co. had a duty to protect against such «secondary» or «take - home» exposure.

The plaintiffs do not seek to interrupt the progress of improvements, but they ask to stay revolution; a revolution against the foundations on which property rests; a revolution which is attempted on the allegation of monopoly: we resist the clamor against legislative acts which have vested rights in individuals, on principles of equal justice to the state, and to those who hold those rights under the provisions of the law.

Specifically, in Rafferty v. Merck & Co., Inc., [4] the SJC held that plaintiffs who ingest the generic form of a drug may bring failure to warn claims against the brand - name manufacturer of the drug if the brand - name defendant acted recklessly by «intentionally fail [ing] to update the label on its drug while knowing or having reason to know of an unreasonable risk of death or grave bodily injury associated with its use.»

The plaintiffs challenged eight restrictions on judicial conduct: 1) the prohibition on judicial candidates campaigning as a member of a political organization, 2) the prohibition on judicial candidates making speeches for or against political organizations or candidates, 3) the ban on judicial candidates making contributions to political causes or candidates, 4) the prohibition on judicial candidates from publicly endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, 5) the prohibition on judges from acting as a leader or holding office in a policitical organization, 6) the prohibition on judicial candidates knowingly or recklessly making false statements during campaigns, 7) the ban on judicial candidates making misleading statements, and 8) the prohibition on candidates making pledges, promises, or committments in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court.

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.

Although government actors are held to the standard of maintaining reasonably safe roadways, it can be more difficult for plaintiffs to prove a negligence case against a state or municipal body when compared to a case against a private party.

The Federal Circuit rejected the plaintiff's Fifth Amendment, Seventh Amendment, and Article III claims against the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, holding that patents are «public rights» dependent on a government grant under Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982).

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.

A default judgment — which can be multimillions of dollars — allows the plaintiff to seek enforcement of that judgment against the financial and other assets of the foreign government held in the US.

In the first appellate decision interpreting and applying Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1006 (a. 1), Pennsylvania's tort reform measure involving venue, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court and held that the plaintiff's medical malpractice action against John's client, a physician, must be transferred out of Philadelphia County.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury case against the defendant, claiming that his promise of a hard - packed road induced her to accompany him on the ride and that he should be held responsible for her injuries.

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.

However, in Douez v. Facebook, the Supreme Court of Canada has recently held, in a 4 - 3 decision, that Facebook could not enforce that clause against the plaintiff, a British Columbia woman complaining that their use of her photo and name in advertising breached her rights under British Columbia's Privacy Act.

Although the reason for this holding makes good and under - appreciated sense from a retributivist perspective — a person ought not be punished for conduct that has not been clearly proven to be the defendant's culpable misconduct, es - pecially if the defendant has various defenses that could be raised as against particular claimants — the new holding poses a substantial risk of reducing incentives to plaintiffs and their counsel because they can not pursue a jackpot of punitive damages based on «total harm.»

Recently, a plaintiff's purported class action against Diet Dr. Pepper went flat when a California federal judge held that the term «Diet» alone on a soft drink label does not constitute a claim that the soft drink will assist in weight loss.

In Austin, the Plaintiff filed suit against Stokes - Craven Holding Corporation, d / b / a Stokes Craven Ford, an automobile dealership, after he experienced problems with a vehicle that he purchased used from the dealership.

That slim majority in Bristol - Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of San Francisco County held that California courts can assert jurisdiction in lawsuits against defendants that are not headquartered or incorporated there, even when out - of - state plaintiffs allege out - of - state injuries.