Sentences with phrase «judgment ruling in favor»

Los Angeles Partners David Shapiro and Christopher Greenleaf and Los Angeles Appellate Partner Caroline Chan recently prevailed in an appeal from a summary judgment ruling in favor of the defendants in a wrongful death premises liability lawsuit.

Marshall Dennehey won a Third Circuit victory over a former teacher who appealed a summary judgment ruling in favor of the teacher's Pennsylvania school district.

For personal injury lawyers we require proof of 3 cases that have gone to trial in the last 5 years resulting in verdict for that lawyer and we also require 2 motions for summary judgment ruled in favor of that attorney.

Not exact matches

(17) This contextualization can help us reflect on the judicial system in North America, for it allows us to penetrate the politicization of the rule of law when judgments are handed down that favor order over justice.

Justice lawyers also filed their own 54 - page motion for summary judgment asking the court to rule in their favor.

A judgment results from a ruling by a court in favor of your creditor, which states that you must pay the specified amount of money.

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.

Another example is a motion for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule in the requester's favor because essential facts are no longer in dispute (perhaps because of what has been learned in discovery), making a jury's decision unnecessary on some — or all — points.

Summary judgment occurs when a judge rules in favor of one party before going to trial.

Notwithstanding the liberal «relation back» principles of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and despite the plaintiffs» claim of «fraudulent concealment,» the Appellate Practice Group secured an award of summary judgment in favor of all additional defendants based on the statute of limitations defense.

In Salvas v. Wal - Mart Stores, the SJC ruled that a trial court judge erred when he decertified the class action, excluded testimony from the plaintiffs» expert witness, and granted partial summary judgment in favor of Wal - MarIn Salvas v. Wal - Mart Stores, the SJC ruled that a trial court judge erred when he decertified the class action, excluded testimony from the plaintiffs» expert witness, and granted partial summary judgment in favor of Wal - Marin favor of Wal - Mart.

District Court amended its original claim construction order based on the PTAB's ruling and granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Ford on the ground that the express disclaimer prevented the patent - in - suit from covering Ford's vehicles.

The trial judge ruled that Coote's expert was inadequate and granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Miller and Midwest Orthopaedics Consultants.

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

Following briefing on appeal, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that the trial court did not err in granting the relief in favor of our client at trial.

A district court ruling upheld the canons, granting summary judgment in favor of the Arizona state officials.

The Court, whose judgments are binding on African States, decided in favor of Mr. Konaté, ruling that his imprisonment for defamation violated the right to freedom of expression in Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples» Rights, ordering Burkina Faso to revise its law to be consistent with the Charter and to pay compensation to Mr. Konaté.

In the first comprehensive appellate decision interpreting Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1042.3 - 1042.6, Pennsylvania's tort reform measure intended to increase the threshold of merit for professional liability actions, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded for the entry of judgment as a matter of law in favor of John's client, a physician, based upon the plaintiff's failure to file a certificate of merit in support of his medical malpractice claiIn the first comprehensive appellate decision interpreting Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1042.3 - 1042.6, Pennsylvania's tort reform measure intended to increase the threshold of merit for professional liability actions, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded for the entry of judgment as a matter of law in favor of John's client, a physician, based upon the plaintiff's failure to file a certificate of merit in support of his medical malpractice claiin favor of John's client, a physician, based upon the plaintiff's failure to file a certificate of merit in support of his medical malpractice claiin support of his medical malpractice claim.

In an earlier ruling on the merits of the case, the Federal Circuit upheld Judge Matsch's decision setting aside the jury's verdict in favor of Medtronic and granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of BrainLAIn an earlier ruling on the merits of the case, the Federal Circuit upheld Judge Matsch's decision setting aside the jury's verdict in favor of Medtronic and granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of BrainLAin favor of Medtronic and granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of BrainLAin favor of BrainLAB.

An appellate court ruled in favor of a pharmaceutical company in an appeal of a summary judgment order and a jury verdict in a multi-district products liability lawsuit.

The trial court ruled in favor of MTPC on summary judgment and concluded that the undisputed evidence showed that G4S repeatedly withheld past due payments from its subcontractors at the same time that it sent certifications to MTPC representing and warranting that those same subcontractors had been paid.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment in Union Carbide's favor and reversed a pre-trial ruling adverse to Union Carbide that had limited the scope of damages presented to the jury.

Judge rules in Ecolab's favor On July 5, 2005, Magistrate Alonzo P. Wilson of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana entered summary judgment in favor of Ecolab Inc. and dismissed the claims of two nurses who alleged that their exposure to fumes of an Ecolab institutional floor wax stripper containing glycol ethers caused their two babies to suffer from the fatal birth defect anencephaly.

A default judgment means that your spouse can proceed in the case against you without your participation and the court can rule in her favor.

The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska entered judgment in favor of the Commission, ruling that the Broker had acted as an unlicensed broker in the state and she could not claim that her advertising activities were protected by the First Amendment.

The court ruled that the privilege of competition entitled the Brokerage to judgment in its favor.

Using the rules of statutory construction, the court found that the license law controlled the relationship between the broker and the salespeople and so the court entered judgment in favor of the Brokerages.

Louisiana court rules that real estate professional's failure to notify lender about reduced sales price did not affect the buyer's ability to qualify for a loan by the required date and so entered judgment in favor of the real estate professional.

In two separate rulings, the trial court entered judgment in favor of all the defendantIn two separate rulings, the trial court entered judgment in favor of all the defendantin favor of all the defendants.

Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the Sellers and so judgment was entered on behalf of the Sellers, Salesperson, Brokerage, and the Buyer's Representative.

The trial court dismissed the allegations made against the Broker in his capacity as a corporate officer of the Brokerage and the court also entered judgment in favor of the Broker individually on the other alleged violations of the Act, ruling that Crank's actions could not be attributed to the Broker individually, only the Brokerage, because the Brokerage was a corporation.

Thus, the court ruled that the mold exclusion denied the Owner coverage for the mold incursion, and the court entered judgment in favor of the Insurance Company.

The trial entered judgment in favor of the Owner against the Family, but ruled for A.M. on the claims against it.