Sentences with phrase «knowledge of defendant»

They do not bring a personal knowledge of the defendant and his character into the court.

In many malpractice cases, the facts lie particularly within the knowledge of the defendant.

Whether in exercise of those obligations or otherwise the Defendant owed a duty to the Claimants to provide prompt and timely disclosure of the state of knowledge of the Defendant at all material times of the risk of infection from Contaminated Blood Products.

Not exact matches

«Because there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Sulyma had actual knowledge of the facts comprising claims I and III, as well as knowledge of the disclosures he alleges were unlawfully inadequate in claims II and IV, the Court grants defendants» motion for summary judgment on those claims, finding them time - barred,» Cousins wrote in his opinion.

So long as experts deal in «hard» knowledge like whether the fibers found on the heels of the defendant's shoes came from the clothing of the victim, their testimony is helpful.

Such of these other manufacturers, including defendant, whose use of the word «Tabasco» came to the knowledge of plaintiff and its predecessors, have been warned to the effect that they have no right to use the word in connection with the sauce, or to use similar packages, and quite a number of suits for infringement have been filed by plaintiff, most of which have been terminated by consent decrees.

Defense attorneys have said that neither the Manganos nor Venditto were involved in any corrupt dealings with Singh, and that the indirect loan guarantees were the work of Singh and Mei without the defendants» knowledge of any illegalities.

«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.

A Settling Defendant (including each officer of each parent of the Settling Defendant who exercises direct control over the Settling Defendant's business decisions or strategies) shall not convey or otherwise communicate, directly or indirectly (including by communicating indirectly through an E-book Retailer with the intent that the E-book Retailer convey information from the communication to another E-book Publisher or knowledge that it is likely to do so), to any other E-book Publisher (including to an officer of a parent of a Publisher Defendant) any competitively sensitive information, including:

«At bottom,» the motion continues, «it appears that Mr. Clark will be called to testify to the ultimate fact at issue in this case: whether Defendant poisoned cats... However, Defendant has not proffered that Mr. Clark has any specialized knowledge of or experience regarding Defendant's behavior.»

The legal analogy is judging the guilt of the defendant based on what you have read in the newspaper and your own background knowledge, without actually going through the process of weighing and debating the evidence.

Dr. Curry, In your response of 11:51 am, you said: «The legal analogy is judging the guilt of the defendant based on what you have read in the newspaper and your own background knowledge, without actually going through the process of weighing and debating the evidence.»

Defendants have caused psychological and emotional harm to Kelsey as a result of her fear of a changing climate, her knowledge of the impacts that will occur in her lifetime, and her knowledge that Defendants are continuing to cause harms that threaten her life and wellbeing.

56 It is true that, even if those conditions are satisfied, the possibility of taking further steps in the proceedings without the defendant's knowledge by means, as in the main proceedings, of «service by public notice» constitutes a restriction of the defendant's rights of defence.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants had «actual or constructive knowledge» of the presence of a large and aggressive alligator because neighbors had spotted the alligator on the course and alerted defendants.

The rationale of the one bite rule was that domestic animals by definition were not injurious, and therefore liability could be predicated only on the defendant's knowledge that a particular animal had a propensity to behave in manner that was injurious to humans.

As for the suggestion that the judge should have held a competency hearing, how could a judge conduct a meaningful «competency» hearing against a defendant when the judge was the incompetent party, i.e., «altogether uninformed» and «egregious lack of knowledge» on the issue of self - representation rights as admonished by the court of appeals.

A good truck accident attorney will have knowledge of the law and the experience to make sure that all liable parties are named as defendants in your lawsuit.

The court of appeals made this clear when it stated that this judge was «altogether uninformed» about a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to self - representation and that «This egregious lack of knowledge presents a serious risk to the rights of defendants.»

Court Finds Question of Whether Defendant Had Knowledge of Dangerous Condition Was a Matter for the Jury, Rejecting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog, published January 5, 2018.

The Supreme Court of Canada in Bruno Appliance and Furniture, Inc. v. Hryniak, 2014 SCC 8, recently summarized the elements of the tort of civil fraud as follows: (1) a false representation made by the defendants; (2) some level of knowledge of the falsehood of the... Read More

The appellate panel went on to say, «This egregious lack of knowledge presents a serious risk to the rights of defendants.»

An important element of slander is that the statement made by the defendant must be heard by a third person or come to the knowledge of a third person.

Without the knowledge of the plaintiff or her counsel, the defendant and accused in the case had shared the plaintiff's documents produced in the civil case with his criminal defence counsel, who then relied on these records at trial.

Under s 14 (1), the date of knowledge is that on which the claimant first became aware the injury in question was significant, that the injury was attributable to the act or omission complained of and the identity of the defendant.

Put simply, these trial courts are faced with lengthy dockets with the pressure of trying to complete them in a sitting, often litigated by unrepresented defendants with little experience or knowledge of the substantive and procedural law, some quite upset about the perceived injustice in their case, in a crowded courtroom with perhaps less than ideal staffing or facilities.

Guidance is given in s 14 (2): for the purposes of s 14 (1) an injury is significant if the person whose date of knowledge is in question would reasonably have considered it sufficiently serious to justify his instituting proceedings for damages against a defendant who did not dispute liability and was able to satisfy a judgment.

The defendant also sought to argue that for the purposes of fulfilling subs 2 (2)(c) what was required was specific knowledge on the part of the keeper of the allegedly dangerous propensity of the specific animal.

So in this case the court's prior «knowledge» of the defendant's guilt was based upon an incorrect statement, and asserting their innocence (or rather, asserting they are not known to be innocent or guilty, as before the original sentence) would not be a patently false claim.

First, the defendant's own knowledge and intent and state of mind are especially crucial in perjury and obstruction of justice cases; the obvious witness to negate those charges, or at least to raise a reasonable doubt about them, is the defendant himself.

Rather, it is a case like many others in which, given the current state of knowledge, it is not possible to prove whether the negligent actions of a defendant caused harm.

During the course of litigation, Laiken obtained a very broadly worded ex parte Mareva order freezing the assets of Sabourin and other named defendants which included enjoining any others «with knowledge of this Order» to «prevent the sale, disposition, withdrawal, dissipation, sale, assignment, dealing with, transfer, conveyance, conversion, encumbrance or diminishment» of the assets, specifically including money held in «trust accounts».

If so, the plaintiff will not be entitled to compensation for their injuries unless there is some knowledge that the defendant had but did not disclose regarding the specific nature of the harm.

Here, the plaintiff admitted that he knew of the dangers involved with moving broken glass, and the defendant did not have superior knowledge of the hazards involved.

Having regard to Mr. Watterson's obvious lack of knowledge of his procedural rights [emphasis mine], it was incumbent on the trial judge to ensure that the procedural rules were followed or, when they were not, to advise Mr. Watterson of his right to object and request an adjournment for the purpose of meeting the evidence that was to be called against the defendants.

This is achieved due to: a more comprehensive knowledge of the most very recent peer reviewed literature, my prior research and also practical expertise in each subject, the sheer degree to which each and every case is investigated (described by one defendant (in 2016) who was acquitted, as being «relentless»), and the ability, as a result of long experience in dealing with very complex cases, to produce concise effective reports to tight deadlines, even in the most complex and demanding cases, often where expertise in several different areas is urgently required.

In short, although the defendants» knowledge of the means of access to the data might engage the privilege against self - incrimination, it would only do so if the data itself — which undoubtedly existed independently of the will of the defendants and to which the privilege against self - incrimination did not apply — contained incriminating material.

«(1)[Subject to subsection (1A) below,] In sections 11 and 12 of this Act references to a person's date of knowledge are references to the date on which he first had knowledge of the following facts --(a) that the injury in question was significant... (2) For the purposes of this section an injury is significant if the person whose date of knowledge is in question would reasonably have considered it sufficiently serious to justify his instituting proceedings for damages against a defendant who did not dispute liability and was able to satisfy a judgment.

This critical analytical distinction gives rise to the requirement that a public figure defamation plaintiff, in addition to proving that the statement was false, must prove a defendant's actual malice (i.e., knowledge of falsity or conscious disregard as to the truth) in order to win a defamation claim.169 The concept itself is fluid and nuanced, providing a purposive device that can be used to ascertain when the «second order» of defamation claim proposed herein is to be used.

Indeed, one might consider that a well - resourced defendant / respondent equipped with knowledge of the funding per se would be able to assess the extent of its potential downside based on the broker's evidence as to market pricing in Essar as accepted by the arbitrator (and implicitly by Waksman Q.C.).

The appellate court explained that to recover compensation in a premises liability claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendant knew or should have known about the danger and that the plaintiff lacked knowledge of the danger, in spite of his ordinary care, due to actions or conditions within the owner's control.

Also, every defendant accused of this crime must have knowledge that what they were participating in was a crime.

Most medical issues are not within the common knowledge of the plaintiff or a jury, so an expert's testimony can be critical in helping the jury understand the applicable standard of care, whether the defendant provider failed to meet that standard, causation and damages.

Under Georgia law, «expert evidence is required where a «medical question» involving truly specialized medical knowledge (rather than the sort of medical knowledge that is within common understanding and experience)» is needed to establish a causal link between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injury.

On September 8, 2006, the plaintiff emailed Johnson and the defendant lawyer, accusing them of altering the agreement without his knowledge, and threatening to sue on the basis that the agreement was to have given each partner a 50 per cent interest.

The deciding factor of the case seems to hinge on whether the three defendants attempted to prevent «aggressive, intoxicated, or impaired individuals from forming a mosh pit» with the knowledge that this band's shows often inspire aggressive behavior in the crowds.

The date of knowledge is the date by which the claimant became aware (or, in the court's opinion, would reasonably have become aware) that the injury was sufficiently serious to justify bringing a claim for damages and that the injury was attributable to an act of the defendant.

Usually, a criminal defense lawyer works to either exploit prosecution mistakes or lack of knowledge that prevent the prosecution from proving that guilt, or work to make sure that the defendant is not convicted of a more serious crime than the one committed, and / or work to see to it that their client does not receive an unnecessarily harsh sentence when alternatives are available.

Buss JA in a separate judgment suggested that the necessary «awareness» must mean knowledge or belief «with sufficient confidence reasonably to justify, in all the circumstances, the commencement of proceedings against the proposed defendant on the relevant cause of action by the issue of a writ or otherwise.»

Thanks to his knowledge of the inner workings of long term care facilities and the policies and procedures they're required to follow, Mr. Rich has consistently provided invaluable case evaluation and testimony on behalf of the plaintiff or defendant.