Sentences with phrase «in favor of the plaintiffs»

If the class - action lawsuit against Honda, Nissan, Toyota and Ford rules in favor of the plaintiffs he notion of making money at all costs will also prove to be catastrophic at these companies.

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.

The case was found in favor of the plaintiffs in a $ 32 million award.

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.

Following months of legal wrangling, the commissioner said the county BOE would agree to grant access to those records if the judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff.

Although based on Lamberth's previous rulings in the case, he seems likely to rule in favor of the plaintiffs and issue a permanent injunction, Robertson predicts that stay or a new version of it would remain in place while the decision is appealed.

In the features section, readers will find an article from Mike Antonucci discussing Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a case currently awaiting a hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court that, if decided in favor of the plaintiffs, could end the practice of «agency fees» charged by teachers unions to nonmembers to cover the costs of collective bargaining.

Adequacy cases decided in favor of plaintiffs in numerous states, such as Campbell County v. Wyoming, have emphasized that the state has a unique obligation to fund schools at high levels, even if other parts of the budget must suffer.

A Friedrichs decision in favor of the plaintiffs would not spell the end of teachers unions.

In addition, several other courts have ended their involvement in cases initially decided in favor of the plaintiffs.

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.

In June, a judge ruling in favor of the plaintiffs said that student performance must be used as part of a teacher's evaluation.

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.

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.

Judge Treu ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on every issue, removing five statutes concerning tenure, seniority and teacher dismissal rules from the state's constitution, adding, «The evidence is compelling.

Just last month, citing a part of the education code that says that a district may deviate from seniority (f) or purposes of maintaining or achieving compliance with constitutional requirements related to equal protection of the laws, Superior Judge William Highberger ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

The suit saw a settlement of $ 25.5 million in favor of the plaintiffs, with around $ 21 million going to fund social service projects benefiting eligible members many still in Hungary.

If you were served with a complaint but ignored it or failed to appear in court, the judge will most likely enter a default judgment against you in favor of the plaintiff and the plaintiff wins by default.

Her final judgment was that blame be apportioned 40/60 in favor of the plaintiff.

If, as the defendant, you lose the case then a judgment will be rendered in favor of the plaintiff.

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.

Viewing the allegations of the amended complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a reasonable finder of fact is likely to find in favor of the plaintiff

The decision (PDF), in a case brought by the American Bar Association — which I'm sure has been receiving thank - you notes from grateful solo practitioners who now need not spend a lot of time drafting identity theft detection protocols — is worded fairly strongly in favor of the plaintiffs.

If the jurors rated similarly situated attorneys equally, as one might expect, the lines on the graphs would appear as a perfect «X.» One would expect the defense attorneys to be rated significantly higher than the plaintiff attorneys when the juries return a verdict in favor of the defendant on all counts and the plaintiff attorneys to be rated significantly higher than the defense attorneys when the juries return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on all counts.

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» standards.

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on the basis that the driver was in a position to monitor their blood sugar but failed to observe the necessary precautions to avoid a hypoglycemic attack.

The trial judge directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on the contract claim, so the jury had to decide the amount of compensatory damages and the fraud and punitive damages claims.

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.

The case was again reversed on appeal, this time in favor of the plaintiff.

In the case, Riley v. Ford Motor Company, the court determined that the trial judge properly adjusted the damages award in favor of the plaintiff after the jury returned a shockingly inadequate amount.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of South Carolina decided a case in favor of a plaintiff who lost her husband in a tragic equipment - related accident.

The case went to trial, and the court found in favor of the plaintiff on the failure to supervise claim and the failure to properly inspect the premises, and it awarded over $ 50,000 in damages.

$ 210,000 verdict — Intentional Tort — jury award by twelve person jury in favor of plaintiff who sustained a spiral or rotational fracture of her finger which prevented her from continuing in her chosen line of work as a dental hygienist.

He also successfully represented the Hertz Corporation and Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation in a lawsuit seeking to enforce the post-employment restrictions of its former employees, a case resulting in a six - figure settlement in favor of the plaintiff companies (Hertz Corp. and Hertz Equipment Rental Corp. v. Mummendey, Ercolano and Ahern Equipment Rental Corp..)

The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and the City appeals.

The contingency fee method of payment is quite simple and works entirely in favor of the plaintiff.

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

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 defendant appealed from the large verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

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.

At the end of the trial, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff.

In recent times, this is one of a handful of antitrust class actions that has gone to a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff clients and a judgment in the clients» favor was entered (Wharton County, Texas).

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

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.

The court ultimately decided the case in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the «garden variety» accident giving rise to the case didn't involve any allegations that the defendant violated any professional duty.

The jury ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and found the drug company had «failed to warn the stay - at - home mother of the risks associated with Topamax and potential birth defects.»

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

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

He or she also announces the type and amount of damages that the defendant must pay if the verdict is in favor of the plaintiff.