Sentences with phrase «interest of the plaintiff»

Rejecting the contention of Ajibola that the preliminary Objection raised by Governor Aregbesola had no foundation, Justice Ayoola held that the Supreme Court had long classified the issue of locus standi and which must reveal that the interest of the Plaintiff surpass that of other members of the society.

Her powerfully - grounding performance is matched in intensity by those of Abigail Breslin as the taken for granted Anna; Sofia Vassilieva as the wasting away Kate; Jason Patric as the stoic family patriarch; Evan Ellingson as the brooding big brother; Alec Baldwin as a vulnerable crusader for the underdog; and Joan Cusack as a judge concerned about the best interest of the plaintiff.

The Probate and Family Court judge appointed defendant attorney to represent plaintiff in those proceedings, but also asked defendant to perform duties akin to those performed by a guardian ad litem, including the making of reports and recommendations to the Probate and Family Court judge regarding the best interests of the plaintiff child.

The majority of the Court in Rodriguez, in reasons penned by Mr. Justice Sopinka, held that despite the fact that the prohibition infringed the section 7 Charter interests of the plaintiff, such a deprivation was justifiable in a free and democratic society.

A dog bite lawyer in Springfield can create a compelling case that puts the interests of the plaintiff first.

This includes the subrogated interest of the plaintiff «s employer for repayment of her accumulated sick bank time in the amount of $ 33,354.73.

(2) An order under clause (1)(b) shall not be made if the parties otherwise consent or if the court is of the opinion that the order would not be in the best interests of the plaintiff, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.

This is because the contingency fee method of payment is specifically designed to protect the financial interests of the plaintiff (you) from any further hardship, burden or worry.

The contingency fee basis is designed to protect the financial interests of the plaintiff at all times and this is why our car accident clients are calm and relaxed when it comes to how much our legal representation is costing them.

I am satisfied that Mr. Dewji's conduct, as the sole director and officer of the defendant corporations, was oppressive, high - handed, callous and unfairly prejudicial to the rights and interests of the plaintiffs.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A new report released today by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) highlights how Ohio's asbestos trust transparency law has been effective at discouraging fraud and abuse without compromising the interests of plaintiffs.

Of note with respect to the issue of damages is that the court declined to award punitive damages, notwithstanding Justice Boswell's finding, in paragraph 23 of his reasons for decision, that, «Mr. Dewji's conduct, as the sole director and officer of the defendant corporations, was oppressive, high - handed, callous and unfairly prejudicial to the rights and interests of the plaintiffs.»

Their job is to advance the interests of plaintiffs who retain them.

Every legal system balances the interests of plaintiffs and defendants, of society and the individual, of justice and economics.

Ultimately in the best interest of the plaintiffs, no.

The plaintiff was not in fact in a power - dependency relationship with the defendant; not all power - dependency relationships are fiduciary in nature, and an ad hoc obligation does not arise in the absence of an undertaking, express or implied, by the fiduciary; and the absence of the power in the defendant to affect the interests of the plaintiff negates the existence of any fiduciary obligation.

Not exact matches

It allows a few representative and committed plaintiffs to act on behalf of the interests of an entire class of injured parties.

In any case, in addition to the court - determined fair value price, the plaintiff also gets accrued interest of 5 % over the federal funds rate.

«Requiring the banks to pay treble damages to every plaintiff who ended up on the wrong side of an independent Libor ‐ denominated derivative swap would, if appellants» allegations were proved at trial, not only bankrupt 16 of the world's most important financial institutions, but also vastly extend the potential scope of antitrust liability in myriad markets where derivative instruments have proliferated,» the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York said in the ruling.A U.S. appeals court on Monday revived private antitrust litigation accusing major banks of conspiring to manipulate the Libor benchmark interest rate, in a big setback for their defense against investors» claims of market - rigging.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because there is complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendant, and the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000, exclusive of costs and interests.

The named plaintiff in the lawsuit is Brady Tucker, an Idaho resident who paid a total of $ 163.91 in fees and surprise interest charges over a six - day stretch.

This was driven in part by the rise of public interest litigation — think, for example, of an environmental group finding a third - party plaintiff to sue a company to stop an environmentally sensitive development project.

Thrivent Financial for Lutherans became the sixth plaintiff to lob a complaint against the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule when the insurer filed a suit in late September challenging the class - action waiver requirement under the rule's best interest contract exemption, or BICE.

The Court conceded there was a compelling state interest in providing contraception; however, because the ACA has a number of exemptions and accommodations, most notably excusing non-profit religious organizations from the contraception mandate, forcing the plaintiffs to provide contraception coverage was not the least restrictive means to further the compelling interest, i.e. the HHS could have allowed the plaintiffs the same accommodations available for non-profit religious organizations.

The legal details on standing, jurisdiction, etc. are all very interesting (follow @ColumbiaClimate for those details), but somewhat uniquely, the judge (William Alsup) has asked for a tutorial on climate science (2 hours of evidence from the plaintiffs and the defendents).

The plaintiff is seeking: A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of the provisions of the 1992 Constitution, particularly Articles 88 (5), 218 (a) and (e), 284 and 287 thereof, the 1st defendant can not act as the legal representative for Honourable Kenneth Nana Yaw Ofori Atta, the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Ghana, in a pending investigation bordering on conflict of interest and abuse of office before the 2nd Defendant; A further declaration that the purported response filed by the 1st Defendant on behalf of the said Honorable Kenneth Nana Yaw Ofori Atta in respect of the petition concerning conflict of interest and abuse of office before the 2nd Defendant is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever;

He said in a statement at the time that: ``... I have this morning 4th November, 2016 filed an application at the Supreme Court for leave to examine the judgment debtor as the citizen public interest plaintiff in favour of whom the case was decided for the Republic of Ghana.»

The decision is a victory for plaintiffs that include NYS Senator Tony Avella, City Club of New York, the Queens Civic Congress (which represents the interests of 100 + civic organizations throughout Queens), New York City Park Advocates, Roosevelt Avenue business owners and nearby residents, Willets Point property and business owners, and the sole resident of Willets Point.

The court similarly held that the issue of locus standi of the Plaintiff must not be the one he shared with other member of the society stressing that the interest he shared in instituting the case must be personal and same was not disclosed in his affidavit.

An attorney representing Republican interests on the state Board of Elections, Todd Valentine, argued that none of the plaintiffs had standing to bring the suit or were actually injured — as all state politicians compete under the same rules and can take the vast LLC donations.

The plaintiff also sought an order of mandamus compelling President Muhammadu Buhari to immediately sack both ministers in public interest and public morality based on the allegations of attempts to influence court decisions recently levelled against them by two Justices of the Supreme Court.

«To the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the Plaintiff [Dominic Ayine] brought this action in his name fronting for the immediate past Government to set at naught the popular wishes of the majority of the Ghanaian electorate who see the President's acceptance of the nomination of the 2nd Defendant [Martin Amidu] as Special Prosecutor, as being in the national interest to attack the canker of corruption in the body politic,» Martin Amidu indicated in his affidavit verification sighted by Citi News.

«I can tell you of a number of cases that are pending where the plaintiffs are very interested,» says Gostin.

The plaintiffs detailed the many ways in which seniority protection placed teacher interests ahead of those of minority students.

The paternity of the $ 5.6 billion figure is easily traced to the plaintiffs in the case, whose expertise was treated as authoritative, despite their obvious vested interest in the outcome.

The class action, filed on behalf of 14 needy Philadelphia students and 12 public - interest organizations, claims the university has not abided by an 1977 city ordinance that the plaintiffs believe requires Penn to provide 125 so - called «Mayor's scholarships» for each entering class.

The lawsuit, filed by the nonprofit Public Interest Law Office of Rochester in September 1998, claims that the state has deprived the plaintiffs — all low - income black and Hispanic students — of their rights under the state constitution to a sound basic education by failing to alleviate concentrations of poverty in the 37,000 - student Rochester school district.

These two agencies filed an appeal, arguing that the plaintiff parents had not met the requisite elements for injunctive relief, including (a) likelihood of success on the merits, (b) unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, and (c) being in the public interest.

Superintendent - elect Glenda Ritz is a plaintiff in the case but says she plans to withdraw so there won't be a conflict of interest when she takes office in January.

Ritz says she will remove herself as a plaintiff after Wednesday's hearing so as to avoid a conflict of interest once she becomes state superintendent.

During moments of frustration with the district's intransigence, I would sometimes say to the courageous disability advocate lawyers representing the plaintiffs that I had a tough time figuring out how students and their parents benefited from maintaining the district at its current size, and that breaking it up into smaller units would better serve students» interests.

Since Bain v. CTA was originally filed in federal district court in April 2015, the plaintiffs, represented by Gibson Dunn Crutcher, LLP, have traded numerous legal filings with a legion of lawyers representing NEA, AFT, CTA, CFT, UTLA and other interested parties.

Yet, stirred up by the CTA delegates, the anger of other delegates over the plaintiffs» victory in standing up to the most powerful special interest in California was intense.

What is also interesting is the choice of court in Dusseldorf where Apple decided to push its case, known as it is to be particularly sympathetic to the plaintiff in IP related cases.

Plaintiffs contend Apple acted as a coordinating hub even though they explicitly acknowledge Apple was a new entrant (not a dominant distributor), with no market power, no experience in book distribution, no business relationships with the Publishers, and no vested interest in the success of the physical book market.

In this case, the plaintiff's lead attorney argued that Smith should be personally liable because his actions were negligent and against the best interests of the corporation.

Defendant agrees to discharge the current interest of $ 499.84 and to reduce Plaintiff's principal balance to $ 4,800.00.

«As of June 20, 2012, Plaintiff owed $ 40,630.79 to Defendant, United States Department of Education («DOE») in student loans and interest that had accrued thereon («student loan obligations»);»

The Plaintiff has a desire to repay all or some portion of her educational loan debt, however, due to the Plaintiff's disability she is and will remain unable to repay her educational debt including accrued interest.

As of November 16, 2012, plaintiff Richard Gerard Desira is indebted to the U.S. Department of Education in the amount of $ 256,372.35, representing the amounts due on the above debts of $ 22,142.34 and $ 234,230.01, respectively, which includes principal and interest.