Sentences with phrase «not grant summary judgment»

However, the court did not grant summary judgment on the issue of whether the plaintiff was authorized to make copies of the compilation.

However, as was the case above, if there is a question or dispute regarding a material fact, the court can not grant a summary judgment motion to either side.

The Judge concluded that he could not grant summary judgment.

Although he did not grant summary judgment, the Judge concluded that the case did not require a full Trial, and used the new summary judgment tools to tailor a «Summary Trial».

What if I knew he typically does not grant summary judgment motions?»

A state judge said she won't grant summary judgment to New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office as it pursues its fraud case against Donald Trump.

The appellate court reasoned that a lower court couldn't grant summary judgment on a basis not presented in the motion.

Barking Hound argued that the trial court erred in not granting summary judgment on this claim because the plaintiff had failed to present evidence that the deceased dog had actual market value, which Barking Hound contends is the sole form of damages recoverable.

Not exact matches

Strine granted summary judgment to M&F Worldwide, finding that the board did not breach its duty to shareholders when it approved a $ 25 per share offer by MFW's controlling shareholder, MacAndrews & Forbes (which, in turn, is wholly owned by Ron Perelman).

Judge Elaine Slobod, of Orange County Supreme Court in upstate New York, granted partial summary judgment March 12 for Wah - chung Hsu, who once lived in the hamlet of Highland Mills, saying in court documents that Wyckoff was in breach of contract when it did not pay him severance after firing him.

The Federal District Court granted the defendant summary judgment, ruling that plaintiff's evidence did not meet a standard of «general acceptance» within the scientific community.

The District Court granted summary judgment to the school district, finding that state law did not bar the district's use of the racial tiebreaker and that the plan survived strict scrutiny on the federal constitutional claim because it was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.

(c) Violation of 14th Amendment procedural due process The court granted the defendants» motion for summary judgment for this claim, finding that Ms. I did not meet the applicable precedent, which requires at the threshold an allegation that the reason for the forced discharge was to avoid a pre-termination hearing.

The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the garage owners, on the grounds that the intervening criminal act of the plaintiff's kin was not foreseeable.

Prior to trial, the trial court granted the automotive manufacturer's partial summary judgment, holding that a manufacturer does not have a duty to warn about products manufactured by other companies.

For example, if some of the claims against some of the parties will proceed to trial in any event, it may not be in the interest of justice to use the new fact - finding powers to grant summary judgment against a single defendant.

The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the memorial crosses did not violate the federal or state constitution.

The district court granted IPT's summary judgment motion and ruled that it did not infringe Lumalier's patents.

By granting summary judgment after denying a request to exclude, the lower court determined the expert testimony didn't constitute evidence.

(Generally speaking, when there are material facts at issue, a summary judgment should not be granted.)

The District Court granted plaintiff «s summary judgment motion and found that plaintiff did not infringe Lumalier «s patents.

Based on that determination, Brooks Kushman filed a motion for summary judgment and on April 21, 2016, U.S. District Judge Norma L. Shapiro granted the motion ending all claims against Ford on the grounds that the TMC patent did not cover the accused Ford vehicles.

The District Court granted summary judgment to the individual defendants, finding that they had absolute immunity for their legislative acts and that the ordinances and resolutions adopted by the council did not constitute an official policy of harassment, as alleged by petitioners.

Hugessen J. found this was only a discovery, not an invention, and granted summary judgment to North Bay.

With respect to the Appellant's first ground, the Court of Appeal found the argument summary judgment should not have been granted on the basis proceedings were still at an early stage in their development «overlooks the direction provided by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 (CanLII), [2014] S.C.J. No. 7 (S.C.C.), at paras. 49 and 66, that summary judgment is to be granted where the record enables to motion judge to reach a fair and just determination on the merits and to do so in a timely, more affordable and proportionate manner.»

In denying summary judgment to GE and granting summary judgment to Boston Edison, the Court found that: (1) while the construction work performed by GE met the definition of an improvement to real property for purposes of the statute of repose, public policy considerations necessitated an exception to the application of the statute in cases involving alleged asbestos - related disease; (2) the installation of asbestos insulation was not an abnormally dangerous activity; (3) Boston Edison did not exercise sufficient control over the work at issue to be held negligent; and (4) a premises owner, such as Boston Edison, has no duty to warn where the subcontractor has knowledge of the hazard which is equal to or greater than that of the premises owner.

If sample size is not masking a significant correlation, the greater readability advantage in federal courts may be explained by the factors that depress the summary judgment success rate in state courts: more restrictive state summary judgment standards, the lack of state court resources compared with those in federal court, and state court judges» relative reluctance to grant summary judgment.111 Although greater readability could still influence the outcomes in some state cases, which would be consistent with the slight readability advantage in our sample, on the whole the anti-summary-judgment factors would reduce the potential readability effect on summary judgment outcome.

(footnote omitted)-RRB-; 1 Steven H. Steinglass, Section 1983 Litigation in State Courts § 8:11 (2015)(«Given these burdens, it is not surprising that better - resourced federal courts have an easier time reviewing summary judgment records and writing opinions granting motions for summary judgment.

Although the additional time that the federal judges took to make decisions is not dispositive of the result, it adds to the possibility that state judges viewing the heavy burden on summary judgment were and are less willing to grant these motions as a threshold matter and instead prefer to let cases proceed to trial or settlement.112 By contrast, the federal judges who take more time in coming to decisions may put more weight on the summary judgment motions if they are, on the balance, more willing to grant them.

Because our sample excluded motions seeking partial summary judgment and orders granting partial summary judgment, and because our sample did not include any outcomes similar to Cecil et al.'s «other» category, the percentages we report above from Cecil et al.'s study are limited to the «grant» and «deny» outcomes.

On the subsequent appeal, the Court of Appeal noted that summary judgment for divorce should not be granted where it would result in the other spouse losing benefits such as health insurance coverage prior to the determination of the corollary relief issues.

My sense is that we are seeing more summary judgment motions being granted (although that's anecdotal, since I haven't run the pre-Combined Air decisions yet to compare), but that success is still highly dependent on making sure your case really meets the Combined Air criteria before bringing a motion.

Again, Justice Pollak cited Paramandham, where the court granted the Insurer's summary judgment motion for a dismissal of the action where the Plaintiff did not provide the evidence necessary to establish that he fell outside of the MIG.

The Richmond U.S. District Court grants summary judgment for grocery store against a customer who allegedly slipped on a smashed grape on Saturday morning; customer could not prove actual or constructive knowledge of an unsafe condition when the employee responsible...

After discovery, the trial court granted summary judgment against the contractor on the grounds that the contractor could not present evidence to prove this essential fact.

Bruno Appliance and Furniture, Inc. v. Hryniak, 2014 SCC 8 (34645) Summary judgment may not be granted where a genuine issue for trial exists; summary judgment is OK where: (1) the judge can make the necessary findings of fact, (2) can apply the law to the facts (3) is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just Summary judgment may not be granted where a genuine issue for trial exists; summary judgment is OK where: (1) the judge can make the necessary findings of fact, (2) can apply the law to the facts (3) is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just summary judgment is OK where: (1) the judge can make the necessary findings of fact, (2) can apply the law to the facts (3) is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result.

Recently, an appellate court issued an opinion in a personal injury case finding that summary judgment should be granted because the plaintiff did not properly respond to the defendant's motion.

Miguna claimed he didn't consent to any publication, production, or release of the book by the defendants, Ontario Superior Court Justice Graeme Mew noted in his decision this month granting summary judgment in the case.

The District Court concluded that the opinions of the plaintiffs» experts were not generally accepted in their field and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

In refusing to grant summary judgment fixing the applicable notice period and dismissing the plaintiff employee's claims for moral and punitive damages in a termination without cause case, the Honourable Justice Margaret Eberhard in the case of Brownson v. Honda of Canada Mfg., 2013 ONSC 896, leave to appeal refused 2013 ONSC 6974, held that the answer may be that no, the employer can not terminate the employee's employment on a without cause basis with impunity.

In addition, to the extent the motion judge considers it advisable, if the motion for summary judgment is not granted but is successful in part, partial summary judgment may be ordered in that context.

The hospital ultimately moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, finding that: (1) the technologist did not act within the scope of her duties, as is necessary for the hospital to be vicariously liable for the technologist's conduct; (2) the plaintiffs failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support a finding of intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (3) none of the plaintiffs suffered actual damages as a result of the technologist's conduct.

In that regard, Karakatsanis J. observed that it may not be in the interests of justice to use the new fact - finding powers to grant summary judgment against a single defendant if the claims against other parties will proceed to trial in any event.

(Combined Air was an excellent example of how r. 20 has been neutered each time it has been upgunned over the decades: a promising start, then more and more and more decisions that expanded the list of situations in which summary judgment wasn't to be granted; Karabus and Tjaden very accurately cite this tendency as «interpretive erosion».)

The ~ 65 % of «wins» didn't, therefore, and in my opinion, mean that, in a situation where a summary judgment might be granted you will receive one 65 % of the time.

Five cases decided together raise a number of issues concerning the interpretation of the new Rule 20, including the nature of the test for determining whether or not summary judgment should be granted, the scope and purpose of the new powers that have been given to judges hearing motions for summary judgment, and the types of cases that are amenable to summary judgment.

The court then granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, finding that defendants did not infringe and that the asserted claims of the patent were invalid in light of prior art that pre-dated the earliest conception date that Taurus could prove.

The defendants were not entitled to reconsideration of the court's decision to grant summary judgment to the plaintiff on the issue of his contributory negligence, as their proposed grounds amounted to mere disagreement with the court's earlier conclusions.

The motion judge granted summary judgment on the second issue, deciding that Williams could not be vicariously liable for Brunning's allegedly defamatory correspondence.

With no discovery on the claim, she was not prepared when the court ruled from the bench that it would grant summary judgment as to her hostile work environment claim.