Sentences with phrase «involving multiple defendants»

(iii) Negligence Actions Involving Multiple Defendants: The basic «but for» test also applies in these more complex cases where loss flows from a variety of negligence acts from different parties.

It is essential to enlist an attorney who has experience handling car accident cases involving multiple defendants.

While Mr. Sacks was left with no compensation and no remedy for his injuries, this decision provides clarity on the application of causation in medical malpractice cases involving multiple defendants.

I have a particular interest in dealing with repetitive strain injury claims and cases involving multiple defendants.

In some cases involving multiple defendants, plaintiffs will need to file separate actions in different courts, leading to possible coordinated multidistrict litigation.

The group, which also includes professionals in the firm's Washington, Chicago and Phoenix offices, has handled litigation in more than 30 states in cases ranging from putative nationwide class actions and mass actions for personal injury and property damage to complex environmental investigation and / or remediation issues and matters involving multiple defendants and hundreds of products.

[58] Where a case involves multiple defendants, the bases of plea must be factually consistent.

First, from the outset, the underlying question in this case was how to apply the «but for» test in cases of delayed medical diagnosis and treatment involving multiple defendant tortfeasors.

Not exact matches

«According to the complaint, defendants» Class Period statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts which were known to or recklessly disregarded by defendants: (a) Battlefield 4 was riddled with bugs and multiple other problems, including downloadable content that allowed players access to more levels of the game, a myriad of connectivity issues, server limitations, lost data and repeated sudden crashes, among other things; (b) as a result, Electronic Arts would not achieve a successful holiday season 2013 rollout of Battlefield 4; (c) the performance of the Electronic Arts unit publishing Battlefield 4 was so deficient that all other projects that unit was involved in had to be put on hold to permit it to focus its efforts on fixing Battlefield 4;»

Defended multiple networking companies in Silicon Valley in a patent infringement litigation involving network switches and routers and successfully settled for the defendants

In Clements v. Clements,, 2012 SCC 32, the Supreme Court of Canada re-affirmed the primacy of the «but for» test in proving causation and confined the alternate «material contribution» test to cases involving multiple negligent defendants where it is not possible to prove which one caused the injury.

The settlement brings to a close the consolidated class action lawsuit brought in 2010 by multiple retirement funds against Countrywide and other defendants for securities violations involving the packaging and sale of MBS.

In this latest chapter of a long - running litigation involving the direct infringement of patent claims involving multiple actors, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently concluded that a defendant can be liable for direct infringement when it «conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit...

The action involved 18 defendants and multiple internet / software patents for managing and querying complex databases.

Accidents involving public transportation can result in significant injuries, wrongful death, and complex litigation involving multiple plaintiffs and defendants.

Because accidents involving drunk drivers can be complicated and complex, a lawyer who has significant experience dealing with claims that involve a number of defendants or multiple insurance companies will increase your chances of a successful outcome in your case.

Additionally, there are often multiple defendants involved since liability can be attributed to more than one party.

The case involved 5 plaintiffs and multiple defendants alleging carbon monoxide poisoning due to negligent design, installation, and maintenance of the hvac system.

Although the York case does demonstrate that multiple parties may be involved in identifying a defendant, many privacy watchdogs would be concerned that IP information loses its privacy value simply because it is shared.

Attorneys for both plaintiffs and defendants will find comprehensive coverage of such matters as: the advantages and disadvantages of suits based on strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty; the use of state consumer protection statutes; the duty to warn and its innumerable ramifications; the liability of the manufacturers, retailers and other potential defendants in the distribution chain; successor liability; federal preemption of common law claims; monitoring product safety during design, manufacturing and distribution; causation theories in actions involving multiple manufacturers; product misuse and alteration; the elements of proof needed in an action; recovery for economic loss; punitive damages; and the government contractor defense.

This likely involves naming multiple defendants in the claim to ensure that an at - fault party can not escape liability.

(1) extending negligent misrepresentation beyond «business transactions» to product liability, unprecedented in Texas; (2) ignoring multiple US Supreme Court decisions that express and implied preemption operate independently (as discussed here) to dismiss implied preemption with nothing more than a cite to the Medtronic v. Lohr express preemption decision; (3) inventing some sort of state - law tort to second - guess the defendant following one FDA marketing approach (§ 510k clearance) over another (pre-market approval), unprecedented anywhere; (4) holding that the learned intermediary rule does not apply whenever a defendant «compensates» or «incentivizes» physicians to use its products, absent any Texas state or appellate authority; (5) imposing strict liability on an entity not in the product's chain of sale, contrary to Texas statute (§ 82.001 (2)-RRB-; (6) creating a claim for «tortious interference» with the physician - patient relationship, again utterly unprecedented; (7) creating «vicarious» breach of fiduciary duty for engaging doctors to serve as expert witnesses in mass tort litigation also involving their patients, ditto; and (8) construing a consulting agreement with a physician as «commercial bribery» to avoid the Texas cap on punitive damages, jaw - droppingly unprecedented.

Richard Faulk, a Partner in Hollingsworth LLP in Washington, D.C., concentrates his practice in complex toxic tort and environmental litigation, including class actions and other mass tort cases involving multiple plaintiffs and defendants.