Sentences with phrase «made against the plaintiffs»

More specifically, the Court found that the defendants failed to properly investigate the allegations made against the plaintiff, and published them knowing them to be false.

The judge also commented upon the unsuccessful allegations of just cause made against the plaintiff which he had asserted led to his inability to find new employment.

Not exact matches

If the class - action lawsuit against Honda, Nissan, Toyota and Ford rules in favor of the plaintiffs he notion of making money at all costs will also prove to be catastrophic at these companies.

Part of the complaint reads, «Moreover, Plaintiff Roy Moore has successfully completed a polygraph test confirming that the representations of misconduct made against him during the campaign are completely false.»

The plaintiffs allege the ride - hailing company discriminates against people who use wheelchairs by not making available wheelchair - accessible cars in the San Francisco Bay Area.

New complaints will make allegations against additional ingredients that sound «non-natural,» and plaintiffs may begin to look more closely at photographs, images and themes on labels, packaging and websites.

In that case Gaidry, a manufacturer of a sauce labelled «Tabasco Pepper Sauce,» brought suit against McIlhenny Company for damages for alleged wrongful conduct in interfering with the plaintiff's business by falsely and in bad faith representing to dealers throughout the country that it had an exclusive trade - mark in the name «Tabasco,» and threatening injunction and other legal proceedings against those who handled any sauce called «Tabasco» not made by the said McIlhenny Company.

The court held that the Plaintiff has made more than sufficient references to the specific allegations, the dates and times were made plus the specific radio / media platforms on which the allegations were made by Defendants against the Plaintiff.

Spock, Hobson, Jenness, Pulley, and others then filed a case that ultimately made its way to the United States Supreme Court (424 U.S. 828 — Greer, Commander, Fort Dix Military Reservation, et al., v. Spock et al.), which ruled against the plaintiffs.

He said, «The trial judge distinguished the Lagos State case from the present one, and held that whereas the court of Appeal so held against Lagos State environmental sanitation days on the ground of same not being a creation of law thus could not be enforced against the plaintiff therein, whereas the Oyo State environmental sanitation days are held pursuant to the provisions of the Oyo State Environmental Law of 2012, 2015, and regulations made thereunder, making the Oyo State exercise legal and constitutional unlike the scenario created in the Lagos case.

The plaintiff, in its originating summons stated that «the allegations made against the 1st and 2nd defendants (Amaechi and Onu) by the two Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria... are grievous enough to warrant their arrest, investigation and prosecution by the 3rd and 4th defendants (DSS and EFCC).»

The allegations by Kent and the others center on what the plaintiffs claim was an unfair attack on them by Spence and his allies regarding charges that a Rockland County council leader, Stephanie Lee, had misused a PEF bank card, making numerous personal purchases, which led to a court judgment of $ 64,104.88 against her.

«In view of that, the plaintiff felt that she had been cheated and made to suffer a lot and filed an action against the bank.

Pawa also led the plaintiffs in a 2008 case, Kivalina v. Exxon Mobil Corp., in which an Alaskan village made arguments against Exxon similar to those that Oakland and San Francisco are making now.

While there is precedent for filing the suit against all of the defendants together, other similar cases have resulted in a judge ordering that there be separate trials for each defendant, making the plaintiff much less likely to sue each offender.

The governor and Ecology have vigorously defended against our youth plaintiffs» case, and have rebuffed all attempts we have made to work together towards a scientifically defensible Climate Recovery Rule.

Founding partner Henry Fenton successfully defended a psychoanalyst against claims made by a plaintiff alleging the psychoanalyst violated the California...

Justice Lauwer declined to make a finding of negligence against the solicitor, ruling instead that the plaintiff's action was statute barred.

The defendant's response must include what portions of the complaint, if any, the defendant admits to, what specifically the defendant contests, what defenses the defendant may have to any of the allegations made in the complaint, and whether the defendant has claims against the plaintiff or any other party.

Instead of analyzing whether California has jurisdiction over the product liability situation, in general, the high court decides that the determination regarding whether California has jurisdiction over a suit against a particular defendant must be made on a plaintiff by plaintiff basis when «specific jurisdiction» rather than «general jurisdiction» is involved.

penalizes the defendant for engaging in public participation «plaintiff» means a person who initiates or maintains a proceeding against a defendant; «proceeding» means any action, suit, matter, cause, counterclaim, appeal, or originating application that is brought in the Supreme Court or the Provincial Court, but does not include a prosecution for an offence or a crime; «public interest» means the whole of the subject matter invites public attention, or a matter in which the public has some substantial concern because it affects the welfare of citizens, or one to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached; «public participation» means communication or conduct aimed at influencing public opinion, or promoting further lawful action by the public or any government body, in relation to an issue of public interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pagainst a defendant; «proceeding» means any action, suit, matter, cause, counterclaim, appeal, or originating application that is brought in the Supreme Court or the Provincial Court, but does not include a prosecution for an offence or a crime; «public interest» means the whole of the subject matter invites public attention, or a matter in which the public has some substantial concern because it affects the welfare of citizens, or one to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached; «public participation» means communication or conduct aimed at influencing public opinion, or promoting further lawful action by the public or any government body, in relation to an issue of public interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pAgainst Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pagainst whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper purpose.

Mass Torts Made Perfect is a CLE - accredited seminar designed to help plaintiff attorneys attract more clients and prepare for trials against tough opponents by presenting solutions to new legal challenges.

Often victims of crime would seek a trial lawyer (i.e. someone who does plaintiff's tort claims) or general practice lawyer, who is familiar with the Internet to bring a tort claim against the perpetrator, to seek a TRO, or to assist of making a persuasive case to criminal prosecutors to press the case (a difficult thing to do).

And now that Mason won't make good on his offer, Kolodziej has found another job — that of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against Mason, seeking $ 1 million.

One explanation for what happened, of course, is that the trial judge realized that finding fault against the no - longer - a-party alleged wrongdoer would decrease the plaintiffs» recovery, maybe significantly enough to make a difference - in a case where the judge had decided that the plaintiff should recover a substantial amount — and this subconsciously affected the trial judge's analysis of principle.

Sadly, many of the few prohibitions that still exist are a relic of the Civil Rights era, when state lawmakers in certain states tried to use this out - dated concept to make it difficult for impoverished minority plaintiffs in Civil Rights cases to gain legal support in the battle against racial segregation.

In the Judicial Review decision, the Court made a number of strong findings against the Faculty, including that it had acted in a biased and «grossly unfair» manner toward the plaintiff.

This suit makes its way to the State Supreme Court after the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled (2 - 1) against the plaintiff citing his failure to prove that either Wabash or Phi Psi violated Indiana's codified hazing law (IC § 34 -30-2-150).

The court was not prepared to incarcerate the plaintiff, but it did make a «super» vexatious litigant order against her.

She is now precluded from instituting any new action of any nature or court proceeding of any nature in any court in Ontario, including small claims court, and she is precluded from bringing any further or fresh step in any existing action without the consent of a Superior Court judge, which consent will only be granted after the plaintiff makes an application for it, and provides proof that she has paid $ 40,000 of the more than $ 50,000 in cost orders that have been made against her to date.

Plaintiff, a dissatisfied attorney, has brought suit against the entire legal tech industry, alleging that the claims and promises it made in 2016 amount to fraud and false advertising.»

Sometimes, plaintiffs - side tort litigator Max Kennerly takes readers on fun trips through high - profile civil cases — the Trump University case and Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker, for instance — writing about the actual law involved or bad decisions made by participating lawyers.

Most new patent cases were filed by ten plaintiffs that purchase patents — not to commercialize them — but to file lawsuits against companies that make use of these so - called inventions.

Mass Torts Made Perfect ® seminars are designed to help plaintiff attorneys succeed in all aspects of their practices, from attracting clients to preparing for trials against formidable opponents.

This decision cuts against plaintiffs» attempts to make premises owners the effective «insurers» for on - premises work, the nature of which subcontractors may be more or equally aware.

120 (1) If a defendant makes a payment to a plaintiff who is or alleges to be entitled to recover from the defendant, the payment constitutes, to the extent of the payment, a release by the plaintiff or the plaintiff's personal representative of any claim that the plaintiff or the plaintiff's personal representative or any person claiming through or under the plaintiff or by virtue of Part V of the Family Law Act may have against the defendant.

Moshe, through his insurer, Intact Insurance Company, argued that his policy was not available under section 277 because a claim had not been made against him directly by the plaintiffs.

Obtaining a defense verdict for a tractor - trailer operator against a plaintiff alleging that the driver made an unsafe lane change resulting in a major traffic accident involving several vehicles.

The plaintiffs challenged eight restrictions on judicial conduct: 1) the prohibition on judicial candidates campaigning as a member of a political organization, 2) the prohibition on judicial candidates making speeches for or against political organizations or candidates, 3) the ban on judicial candidates making contributions to political causes or candidates, 4) the prohibition on judicial candidates from publicly endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, 5) the prohibition on judges from acting as a leader or holding office in a policitical organization, 6) the prohibition on judicial candidates knowingly or recklessly making false statements during campaigns, 7) the ban on judicial candidates making misleading statements, and 8) the prohibition on candidates making pledges, promises, or committments in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court.

The Bank did not investigate the complaints, refused to provide the plaintiff with particulars of the complaints made against him and refused to provide the plaintiff with an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

Several of the most closely watched tort reform measures would make it more costly for plaintiffs to bring cases against large corporate defendants.

Say you're defending a company against a products liability claim, and the plaintiff had a history of making litigation threats against other companies» customer service reps?

The complaint in the civil suit against Maggio claimed that Maggio had abused the public trust, which is a class D felony in Arkansas, and that this abuse made him liable to Ms. Bull's estate under the statute that allows victims of a felony to bring a civil action; that Maggio breached a fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs by engaging in conduct that violated certain judicial and statutory rules; that Maggio engaged in a civil conspiracy with Gilbert Baker and Michael Morton; and that Maggio acted in concert with Morton and Baker.

With regard to discovery, Feeney J characterised the litigation strategy of the plaintiffs as being «to make extensive and general assertions against the defendants and seek to have those parties disprove such matters.»

Trolls — plaintiffs who don't make products themselves but make a living threatening accidental infringers — may be hardest hit by the judiciary's turn against software patents.

[41] The plaintiff, in reply, submits that he understood that any settlement offers made by the defendant were full settlements of both the tort claim and Part 7 claims against ICBC, and that at no time did defence counsel convey that Part 7 benefits would still be available in the event that the Defendant's Offer was accepted.

Although I made a finding that both his alcohol consumption and anxiety had significant impacts on his life following the accident, the plaintiff suggests he should not be faulted for failing to guess that those factors would be essentially held against him when making a conclusion about whether he had a brain injury or not.

The case is on appeal by the defense, and the plaintiffs are lodging Chapter 93A and 176D bad faith claims against the insurer for its failure to make any settlement offers until the first day of trial.

Although the reason for this holding makes good and under - appreciated sense from a retributivist perspective — a person ought not be punished for conduct that has not been clearly proven to be the defendant's culpable misconduct, es - pecially if the defendant has various defenses that could be raised as against particular claimants — the new holding poses a substantial risk of reducing incentives to plaintiffs and their counsel because they can not pursue a jackpot of punitive damages based on «total harm.»

[49] The plaintiff argued that there should be a presumption against the making of an order for the availability or use of a CPC recording.