Sentences with phrase «judgment motion held»

The judge hearing the summary judgment motion held that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial for the following reasons: (i) there was no evidence that anyone died on the property, either by natural causes or some criminal act; (ii) the vendor was not required to disclose that someone had died on the property or that the property may be haunted; (iii) there was no evidence as to how the purchaser could prove... Read More

Not exact matches

If any other matters are properly presented for consideration at the 2018 Annual Meeting, including, among other things, consideration of a motion to adjourn the 2018 Annual Meeting to another time or place, the persons named as proxy holders, Elon Musk, Deepak Ahuja and Todd Maron, or any of them, will have discretion to vote the proxies held by them on those matters in accordance with their best judgment.

Following the release of the SCC decision in Hryniak in January of this year, the widely held view was that the decision would deal a death blow to trials in Canada and would open the floodgates to summary judgment motions.

Often people do a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which states that the person put the appeal on hold.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal has held that a defendants» motion for summary judgment should be dismissed, rejecting their argument that claims for pure economic loss for patent defects that are not imminently dangerous should not proceed to trial.

The Court held that the motion judge erred in allowing summary judgment on the negligence claim against the Pearlmans where there were issues of material fact whether Samantha knowingly permitted Thomas to operate her car in violation of a provision of G.L. c. 90 and whether that violation was causally related to the accident.

As such, the Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's holding that an Ontario court has the jurisdiction to enforce the Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron and Chevron Canada.

The court concluded that taking those two factors into account, as well as the fact that the plaintiff would not be unfairly prejudiced by the reversal of the motion, the court held that default judgment should have been set aside.

Update 4:35 p.m.: In a ruling today, Federal Court Justice Russel Zinn held in Apotex Inc. v. Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals that the Federal Court had jurisdiction to consider Apotex's impeachment action and motion for summary judgment and declared Pfizer's patent on Viagra, Canadian Patent No. 2,163,466 invalid.

Much more recently, however, the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin held that «a trial is not required if a summary judgment motion can achieve fair and just adjudication... and is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result than going to trial».

Because our existing case law holds that a property owner does not violate the duty of reasonable care by failing to remove natural accumulations of snow and ice, see Sullivan v. Brookline, 416 Mass. 825, 827 (1994), the judge concluded that, as a matter of law, the plaintiff could not prevail on his claims of negligence; therefore, the judge allowed the defendants» motions for summary judgment.

[22] Rule 20.04 (2.1) is a statutory reversal of the case law that had held that a judge can not assess credibility, weigh evidence, or find facts on a motion for summary judgment.

Acting on a motion for summary judgment filed by Hueston Hennigan, U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick held that although courts «sparingly grant summary judgment in trademark cases because they are so fact - intensive,» the evidence here tilted so heavily in favor of the defendants as to make summary judgment appropriate.

To generate predicted probabilities, we held all variables at their means (or modal values if dichotomous) aside from the difference in readability score variable, which we varied from -4 to 4 based on the spectrum of our data.102 The results for the predicted probability that a moving party prevails on a motion for summary judgment based on a given readability score are presented in Figure 1 below.103

The franchise filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that since it had already conceded the driver was acting in the course and scope of employment, the chain could only be held vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Kuchta held that the borrowers could not file a post judgment motion again raising the standing issue.

If a Georgia appellate court holds that a lawyer, judge or jury made an error during the trial, or that a judge made an error in deciding a motion for summary judgment, the appellate court can reverse the trial court's decision or order a new trial.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the published decision of the district court, which had denied insurer's motion for summary judgment, holding that a defect that is not apparent upon reasonable inspection, but only comes to light after an intensive post-failure expert examination, is a latent defect within insurance policy's latent defect exclusion.

Accordingly, the judge held the plaintiff's claim for post-104 IRBs is not statue - barred and dismissed the summary judgment motion.

In response to (1), the ONCA noted that «this is not how summary judgment motions work» and held that the motion judge properly considered the evidence, applied the statutory framework, and determined the appropriate equalization payment.

The motions judge held the McCutcheon judgment should only be enforced against The Cash Store with respect to payday loans.

In sum, the court held that there were no facts in the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment that supported his version of the events.

The Court of Appeal held that in doing so the motion judge essentially disposed of the case on its merits as opposed to merely setting aside the default judgment and allowing the case to proceed defended.

In Brown v. Canada, 2014 FC 831, the Court held that a summary judgment motion on the issue of whether a patent applicant was a public servant was appropriate for determination but held that whether material allegations must be willfully made to void a patent was to be determined at trial.

The Court of Appeal held that while it may have been just for the motion judge to set aside the judgment and allow a defence, it was not just for the motion judge to make a final determination and substitute a new interest rate.

In Wallbridge v. Brunning, the Court of Appeal held that whether a law firm can be vicariously liable for defamatory statements made by a lawyer who practices «in association» with it (as opposed to being an associate employed by the law firm or a partner of the law firm), is an issue of general importance that should be determined at a trial and not on a motion for summary judgment.