Sentences with phrase «not on a motion for summary judgment»

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.

Not exact matches

On their motion for summary judgment, defendants argued that plaintiffs had not satisfied the loss causation requirement of Section 10 (b) because plaintiffs» losses were not caused by the revelation that First Solar had committed fraud.

This is not a case where the standard of proof on a motion for summary judgment would be relaxed in the name of proportionality.

Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Timothy C. Batten Sr., ruling on Fastcase's motion for summary judgment, denied the motion and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, meaning that Fastcase is not barred from refiling the lawsuit in another court.

Whether it's a subpoena duces tecum, a motion for summary judgment, or a complaint — the very foundational document on which a civil lawsuit is based — law students don't get much hands - on

The rescue captain argued that the demotion violated his First Amendment right to intimate association, but the lower court dismissed his case on a motion for summary judgment, concluding among other things that «Starling's First Amendment right to intimate association with Smith was not clearly established.»

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.

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.

Allstate denies Araujo third - party coverage and brings two motions for summary judgment: one to dismiss Fernandes» claim as against Almeida (based on a theory of vicarious liability), the other to dismiss Araujo's claim on the ground she was not entitled to coverage (as she drove the ATV without a proper licence).

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

For those of you who aren't familiar with the Ontario rules, a summary judgment motion is a motion brought by a party to obtain judgment without a trial on the basis that the result is so clear cut that a full trial is not necessary.

Whether it's a subpoena duces tecum, a motion for summary judgment, or a complaint — the very foundational document on which a civil lawsuit is based — law students don't get much hands - on experience with litigation documents in traditional law school courses.

In Fernandes v. Araujo et al., the owner's insurer brought a motion for summary judgment stating that the owner was not vicariously liable for the driver's negligence as the owner had not given permission to the driver to operate the vehicle, an ATV located on the owner's farm, on the highway, as the driver only had a G1 license and was not licensed to use the ATV on a highway.

In my view, absent limited circumstances (such as a trial on damages once liability is determined), the Court should restrict itself from ordering a mini-trial when a party has chosen to tender a deficient evidentiary record on a motion for summary judgment, for a mini-trial ought not to permit a party to buttress or «cooper up» its deficient record.

I am not going to comment on whether or not I believe that the discovery process should be permitted in all cases to run its course when a motion for summary judgment is pending.

Justice Hainey stated, in his summary on the motion to amend, «Chevron Canada's shares and assets are not exigible and available for execution and seizure by the plaintiffs in satisfaction of the Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron Corporation.»

However, they are not issues that lend themselves to determination on a motion for summary judgment in circumstances such as this, in my view, particularly where the action is being processed in the simplified procedure regime...

These issues do not lend themselves to resolution by way of summary judgment and as such most SLAPP motions should be doomed to failure as are motions for summary judgment on the same issues.

In cases that call for multiple findings of fact on the basis of conflicting evidence emanating from a number of witnesses and found in a voluminous record, a summary judgment motion can not serve as an adequate substitute for the trial process.

If on a motion for summary judgment, a judge can not dispose of the issues without a trial, it follows that a motion judge would be equally unable to determine, without the benefit of a trial, the issues to be decided on a SLAPP motion.

The motion judge dismissed the motion for summary judgment on the basis that the limitation period did not commence until February 2013, when the respondent received the diagnosis from Dr. Patel.

Consistent with this, Williams brought its summary judgment motion solely on the basis that it could not be found to be vicariously liable for that correspondence.

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

The trial court originally granted the representative's motion for summary judgment on the misrepresentation claims, finding that the purchaser could not have justifiably relied on the representative's statement because the purchaser was a sophisticated party, had inspected the property, and the title report did not mention beach access.

The court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against Broker, finding that triable questions of fact did exist on that count, including whether or not Broker knew, when it sent the checks to Plaintiff's team members, that they would not forward Plaintiff his split.

Reiser, Inc. v. Roberts Real Estate (292 A.D. 2d 726)-- claims that broker breached listing agreement based on extrinsic evidence can not survive the explicit language of the listing agreement granting to broker «full discretion to determine the appropriate marking approach» for the listed properties; broker establishes its entitlement to commission under the listing agreements by introducing uncontroverted evidence that three properties sold as a result of broker's efforts while the listing agreements where in effect; owner's claims of breach of fiduciary duty fail where owner, builder / developer, did not list all of its properties with broker as broker's duty is limited to protecting its principal's interest only with respect to properties which have been listed with the broker; broker's duty to refrain from taking action adverse to its principal's interests is necessarily tied to the transaction that formed the agency relationship; owner's claim of fraud in the inducement under one of two listing agreements survives motion for summary judgment

Praedia Realty Corp. v. Durst (233 A.D. 2d 380)- order granting buyer's motion for summary judgment dismissing broker's complaint affirmed; broker was hired by seller to find a purchaser for the premises; contract between broker and buyer will not be implied in fact where facts are inconsistent with its existence; order granting selling broker's motion for summary judgment dismissing broker's complaint affirmed; in the absence of an agreement with the buyer, conduct on the part of selling broker can not be the proximate cause of seller's broker's failure to collect a commission from buyer; broker not entitled to commission where at time broker negotiated selling price, buyer was not ready, willing and able to purchase at the terms set by the seller.

3d 1016A)- salesperson's motion for summary judgment for commission against her broker granted; broker and salesperson orally agreed that broker would pay half of any commission that broker received to salesperson where salesperson was the procuring cause of sale generating the commission; broker refused to pay salesperson's commission on grounds that commission was not paid to broker on legal grounds but upon long standing ties with other brokerage firm and that salesperson did not do her job competently and professionally; court determined that in the course of performance it is the fact of payment of commission to the broker that triggers payment to the salesperson; judgment for salesperson for $ 11,250.00