Sentences with phrase «officer claims in court»

Friday June 12th 2009 — Charged with assault & illegally in Kenya (plead not guilty to both charges) The prosecuting officer claims in court, the complainant is in a coma and unlikely to last the weekend in a very dishonest statement so we are retained in custody till the following Monday.

Not exact matches

In a court ruling authorizing the arrests, Brazilian federal judge André Duszczak said «Faria and other BRF officers sought to cover up claims of possible food contamination, as shown in certain laboratory tests, made by a former employee in a labor lawsuit.&raquIn a court ruling authorizing the arrests, Brazilian federal judge André Duszczak said «Faria and other BRF officers sought to cover up claims of possible food contamination, as shown in certain laboratory tests, made by a former employee in a labor lawsuit.&raquin certain laboratory tests, made by a former employee in a labor lawsuit.&raquin a labor lawsuit.»

This news comes weeks after Waymo dismissed three of the four patent - infringement claims in the suit and a court decided to allow Uber to depose Alphabet CEO Larry Page as well as David Drummond, the company's chief legal officer and senior vice president of corporate development.

To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, you agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Daily Harvest, and our respective past, present and future employees, officers, directors, contractors, consultants, equityholders, suppliers, vendors, service providers, parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, representatives, predecessors, successors and assigns (individually and collectively, the «Daily Harvest Parties»), from and against all actual or alleged Daily Harvest Party or third party claims, damages, awards, judgments, losses, liabilities, obligations, penalties, interest, fees, expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys» fees and expenses) and costs (including, without limitation, court costs, costs of settlement and costs of pursuing indemnification and insurance), of every kind and nature whatsoever, whether known or unknown, foreseen or unforeseen, matured or unmatured, or suspected or unsuspected, in law or equity, whether in tort, contract or otherwise (collectively, «Claims»), including, but not limited to, damages to property or personal injury, that are caused by, arise out of or are related to (a) your use or misuse of the Sites, Content or Products, (b) any User Content you create, post, share or store on or through the Sites or our pages or feeds on third party social media platforms, (c) any Feedback you provide, (d) your violation of these Terms, (e) your violation of the rights of another, and (f) any third party's use or misuse of the Sites or Products provided tclaims, damages, awards, judgments, losses, liabilities, obligations, penalties, interest, fees, expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys» fees and expenses) and costs (including, without limitation, court costs, costs of settlement and costs of pursuing indemnification and insurance), of every kind and nature whatsoever, whether known or unknown, foreseen or unforeseen, matured or unmatured, or suspected or unsuspected, in law or equity, whether in tort, contract or otherwise (collectively, «Claims»), including, but not limited to, damages to property or personal injury, that are caused by, arise out of or are related to (a) your use or misuse of the Sites, Content or Products, (b) any User Content you create, post, share or store on or through the Sites or our pages or feeds on third party social media platforms, (c) any Feedback you provide, (d) your violation of these Terms, (e) your violation of the rights of another, and (f) any third party's use or misuse of the Sites or Products provided tClaims»), including, but not limited to, damages to property or personal injury, that are caused by, arise out of or are related to (a) your use or misuse of the Sites, Content or Products, (b) any User Content you create, post, share or store on or through the Sites or our pages or feeds on third party social media platforms, (c) any Feedback you provide, (d) your violation of these Terms, (e) your violation of the rights of another, and (f) any third party's use or misuse of the Sites or Products provided to you.

The Enrollment Program also authorizes a superior court to have jurisdiction over enrollees by allowing it to «appoint a receiver, monitor, conservator, or other designated fiduciary or officer of the court for a defendant or the defendant's assets,» as well as authorizes the Commissioner of Business Oversight to «include in civil actions claims for ancillary relief, including restitution and disgorgement, on behalf of a person injured, as well as attorney's fees and costs, and civil penalties of up to $ 25,000» for up to four years after the purported violation occurred and «refer evidence regarding violations of the bill's provisions to the Attorney General, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the United States Department of the Treasury, or the district attorney of the county in which the violation occurred, who would be authorized, with or without this type of a reference, to institute appropriate proceedings.»

In those cases the court deferred to the judgment of the Air Force that the free - exercise claim of a Jewish officer who wore his yarmulke on duty could not be accommodated; it deferred to the judgment of correctional authorities that the free - exercise claim of a Black Muslim to attend Friday afternoon religious services could not be accommodated; it deferred to the judgment of the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service that building a logging road through a national forest was necessary despite the damage to religious practices of Native American tribes in that area; it deferred to the Internal Revenue Service's ruling that Bob Jones University was not entitled to tax exemption because of its religiously motivated rule against interracial dating and marriage on campus; it deferred to the judgment of the secretary of labor that a religious community must pay its members the minimum wage for work they performed in the group's business although the members said they had religious objections to being paid for their worIn those cases the court deferred to the judgment of the Air Force that the free - exercise claim of a Jewish officer who wore his yarmulke on duty could not be accommodated; it deferred to the judgment of correctional authorities that the free - exercise claim of a Black Muslim to attend Friday afternoon religious services could not be accommodated; it deferred to the judgment of the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service that building a logging road through a national forest was necessary despite the damage to religious practices of Native American tribes in that area; it deferred to the Internal Revenue Service's ruling that Bob Jones University was not entitled to tax exemption because of its religiously motivated rule against interracial dating and marriage on campus; it deferred to the judgment of the secretary of labor that a religious community must pay its members the minimum wage for work they performed in the group's business although the members said they had religious objections to being paid for their worin that area; it deferred to the Internal Revenue Service's ruling that Bob Jones University was not entitled to tax exemption because of its religiously motivated rule against interracial dating and marriage on campus; it deferred to the judgment of the secretary of labor that a religious community must pay its members the minimum wage for work they performed in the group's business although the members said they had religious objections to being paid for their worin the group's business although the members said they had religious objections to being paid for their work.

In consideration of being permitted to use the Website, You agree to indemnify and hold harmless Non-GMO Project, and / or its officers, directors, employees, partners, contractors, affiliates, subsidiaries, agents, attorneys, web developers, technical support / maintenance providers, distributors, advertisers, licensors, sublicensees, and / or assigns, from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys» fees, expert witness fees, and court costs, made by any third party due to or arising out of Content You Post, Your use of the Website, including without limitation, Your participation in any interactive aspect of the Website, Your use of any information provided on or in connection with or obtained from the Website, Your violation of this Agreement, Your breach of any of the representations and warranties contained herein, or Your violation of any rights of anotheIn consideration of being permitted to use the Website, You agree to indemnify and hold harmless Non-GMO Project, and / or its officers, directors, employees, partners, contractors, affiliates, subsidiaries, agents, attorneys, web developers, technical support / maintenance providers, distributors, advertisers, licensors, sublicensees, and / or assigns, from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys» fees, expert witness fees, and court costs, made by any third party due to or arising out of Content You Post, Your use of the Website, including without limitation, Your participation in any interactive aspect of the Website, Your use of any information provided on or in connection with or obtained from the Website, Your violation of this Agreement, Your breach of any of the representations and warranties contained herein, or Your violation of any rights of anothein any interactive aspect of the Website, Your use of any information provided on or in connection with or obtained from the Website, Your violation of this Agreement, Your breach of any of the representations and warranties contained herein, or Your violation of any rights of anothein connection with or obtained from the Website, Your violation of this Agreement, Your breach of any of the representations and warranties contained herein, or Your violation of any rights of another.

You expressly agree that exclusive jurisdiction for any claim or dispute with MomsTeam or relating in any way to your use of the Services resides in the courts of Massachusetts and you further agree and expressly consent to the exercise of personal jurisdiction in the courts of Massachusetts in connection with any such dispute including any claim involving MomsTeam or its parents, affiliates, subsidiaries, employees, contractors, officers, directors, telecommunication providers and content providers.

The Certification Officer, a retired high court judge, has rejected one of the right wing's claims against McCluskey and will be making judgements on other claims in June.

We find it very bizarre that the Hon. Attorney - General, Ms Gloria Akufo, who assured the entire citizenry of her commitment to fairness and strict adherence to ethical principles at her vetting not too long ago, will claim that she exercised the said constitutional discretion on grounds merely that there was a lack of evidence to prosecute the case in question when indeed, the Siting Judge, Court Clerks, Court Bailiffs, Court Warrant Officers (CWOs), Journalists as well as notable public figures in whose presence the said court was physically attacked and the accused persons freed, are alive and available to be interviewed and evidence taken from Court Clerks, Court Bailiffs, Court Warrant Officers (CWOs), Journalists as well as notable public figures in whose presence the said court was physically attacked and the accused persons freed, are alive and available to be interviewed and evidence taken from Court Bailiffs, Court Warrant Officers (CWOs), Journalists as well as notable public figures in whose presence the said court was physically attacked and the accused persons freed, are alive and available to be interviewed and evidence taken from Court Warrant Officers (CWOs), Journalists as well as notable public figures in whose presence the said court was physically attacked and the accused persons freed, are alive and available to be interviewed and evidence taken from court was physically attacked and the accused persons freed, are alive and available to be interviewed and evidence taken from same.

DiPizio has filed a lawsuit in state and federal court claiming that state officials acted illegally when they terminated her company's contract to build the Canalside ice rink, alleging the contract was given to a Rochester - based firm that had contributed big money to Cuomo and other officer holders.

Accordingly, you shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Author Solutions and Reader's Digest Inc. from and against any suit, proceeding, assertion, damage, cost, liability and expenses (including court costs and reasonable attorneys» fees) incurred as a result of claims of customers or other third parties claim (including, without limitation, claims by regulators) against Author Solutions and / or Reader's Digest Inc. and their respective suppliers, officers, directors, employees and agents arising from or connected with (i) your website [s], including without limitation any activities or aspects thereof or commerce conducted thereon; (ii) the marketing activities you undertake in connection with the LifeRich Publishing affiliate marketing program; or (iii) the breach or alleged breach of the reps and warranties you make herein.

In the event that a claim for indemnification against such liabilities (other than the payment by the registrant of expenses incurred or paid by a trustee, officer or controlling person of the registrant in the successful defense of any action, suit or proceeding) is asserted by such trustee, officer or controlling person in connection with the securities being registered, the registrant will, unless in the opinion of its counsel the matter has been settled by controlling precedent, submit to a court of appropriate jurisdiction the question whether such indemnification by it is against public policy as expressed in such Act and will be governed by the final adjudication of such issuIn the event that a claim for indemnification against such liabilities (other than the payment by the registrant of expenses incurred or paid by a trustee, officer or controlling person of the registrant in the successful defense of any action, suit or proceeding) is asserted by such trustee, officer or controlling person in connection with the securities being registered, the registrant will, unless in the opinion of its counsel the matter has been settled by controlling precedent, submit to a court of appropriate jurisdiction the question whether such indemnification by it is against public policy as expressed in such Act and will be governed by the final adjudication of such issuin the successful defense of any action, suit or proceeding) is asserted by such trustee, officer or controlling person in connection with the securities being registered, the registrant will, unless in the opinion of its counsel the matter has been settled by controlling precedent, submit to a court of appropriate jurisdiction the question whether such indemnification by it is against public policy as expressed in such Act and will be governed by the final adjudication of such issuin connection with the securities being registered, the registrant will, unless in the opinion of its counsel the matter has been settled by controlling precedent, submit to a court of appropriate jurisdiction the question whether such indemnification by it is against public policy as expressed in such Act and will be governed by the final adjudication of such issuin the opinion of its counsel the matter has been settled by controlling precedent, submit to a court of appropriate jurisdiction the question whether such indemnification by it is against public policy as expressed in such Act and will be governed by the final adjudication of such issuin such Act and will be governed by the final adjudication of such issue.

In the event that a claim for indemnification against such liabilities (other than the payment by Registrant of expenses incurred or paid by a trustee, officer or controlling person of Registrant in the successful defense of any action, suit or proceeding) is asserted by such trustee, officer or controlling person in connection with the securities being registered, Registrant will, unless in the opinion of its counsel the matter has been settled by controlling precedent, submit to a court of appropriate jurisdiction the question whether such indemnification by it is against public policy as expressed in the 1933 Act and will be governed by the final adjudication of such issuIn the event that a claim for indemnification against such liabilities (other than the payment by Registrant of expenses incurred or paid by a trustee, officer or controlling person of Registrant in the successful defense of any action, suit or proceeding) is asserted by such trustee, officer or controlling person in connection with the securities being registered, Registrant will, unless in the opinion of its counsel the matter has been settled by controlling precedent, submit to a court of appropriate jurisdiction the question whether such indemnification by it is against public policy as expressed in the 1933 Act and will be governed by the final adjudication of such issuin the successful defense of any action, suit or proceeding) is asserted by such trustee, officer or controlling person in connection with the securities being registered, Registrant will, unless in the opinion of its counsel the matter has been settled by controlling precedent, submit to a court of appropriate jurisdiction the question whether such indemnification by it is against public policy as expressed in the 1933 Act and will be governed by the final adjudication of such issuin connection with the securities being registered, Registrant will, unless in the opinion of its counsel the matter has been settled by controlling precedent, submit to a court of appropriate jurisdiction the question whether such indemnification by it is against public policy as expressed in the 1933 Act and will be governed by the final adjudication of such issuin the opinion of its counsel the matter has been settled by controlling precedent, submit to a court of appropriate jurisdiction the question whether such indemnification by it is against public policy as expressed in the 1933 Act and will be governed by the final adjudication of such issuin the 1933 Act and will be governed by the final adjudication of such issue.

You expressly agree that exclusive jurisdiction for any dispute with VetLIVE.com, or in any way relating to your use of the VetLIVE.com Site, resides in the courts of the State of Pennsylvania and you further agree and expressly consent to the exercise of personal jurisdiction in the courts of the State of Pennsylvania in connection with any such dispute including any claim involving VetLIVE.com, LLC or its affiliates, subsidiaries, employees, contractors, officers, directors, telecommunication providers, and content providers.

The court ultimately threw out the evidence of the marijuana, however, after Doty testified that the odor of marijuana sealed in a mason jar would not have been strong enough for an officer to smell it, as claimed.

The claim was filed against former Dewey chairman Steven Davis, former executive director Stephen DiCarmine and former chief financial officer Joel Sanders on Friday (14 December) in Iowa Southern District Court by Aviva Life and Annuity Company and Aviva Life and Annuity Company of New York.

Nevertheless, the arguments are frequently crunched through, probably because of an important Illinois Supreme Court ruling from 1990 which is still good law, Rollins v. Ellwood, involving claims brought against a Baltimore police officer, among others, sounding in intentional tort for his role in the apprehension of a misidentified criminal defendant and Illinois resident in Illinois, for which the Court found the officer was not subject to Illinois jurisdiction.

Successfully defended a Vermont town and its police department in the United States District Court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals against a claim of unconstitutional policies and practices, training, supervision and hiring in connection with an officer - involved shooting

Successfully defended the County of Westchester before the Southern District of New York and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in a case involving Constitutional claims arising from the criminal arrest and «Perp Walk» of correction officers.

He successfully defended the County of Westchester before the Southern District of New York and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in a case involving Constitutional claims arising from the criminal arrest and «Perp Walk» of correction officers (Caldarola v. County of Westchester).

Additionally, Michael has prosecuted and defended claims on behalf of clients in state and federal trial and appellate courts involving fraudulent and preferential transfers, director and officer liability and insurance coverage claims, construction defects, construction claims for lost productivity and other claims for extra-contractual compensation, and the enforcement of construction liens and bonds.

In Wellington v. Ontario, the family of a young man killed by two police officers sought to bring a claim in negligence against the Special Investigations Unit for various deficiencies in their investigation of the death; their claim was dismissed based on the Court of Appeal's view that these types of claims were not grounded in any realistic duty of care given the public duties of policing bodieIn Wellington v. Ontario, the family of a young man killed by two police officers sought to bring a claim in negligence against the Special Investigations Unit for various deficiencies in their investigation of the death; their claim was dismissed based on the Court of Appeal's view that these types of claims were not grounded in any realistic duty of care given the public duties of policing bodiein negligence against the Special Investigations Unit for various deficiencies in their investigation of the death; their claim was dismissed based on the Court of Appeal's view that these types of claims were not grounded in any realistic duty of care given the public duties of policing bodiein their investigation of the death; their claim was dismissed based on the Court of Appeal's view that these types of claims were not grounded in any realistic duty of care given the public duties of policing bodiein any realistic duty of care given the public duties of policing bodies.

Our attorneys who handle directors and officers liability claims have years of experience representing clients in federal and state courts, including the U.S. bankruptcy courts, as well as state and federal administrative proceedings.

R (Superintendents» Association) v Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police (Admin Court, 2013)[2013] EWHC Admin 2173 (Admin) John acted for Bedfordshire Police in its successful defence of a judicial review claim arising from the decision to require police officers to retire when they qualify for a full pension.

Represented receiver in claim brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the directors and officers of AA Capital Partners, Inc., an SEC - registered investment advisor, in a $ 60 million claim for violations of ERISA, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and conversion arising out of alleged misappropriation and misuse of investor funds.

Neil Rose further explains how this pilot project works: ``... the three stages of the online court would be: [One] An automated online triage stage designed to help LiPs articulate their claim in a form which the court can resolve, and to upload their key documents and evidence; [Two] A conciliation stage, handled by a case officer; and [Three], a determination stage, where those disputed cases which can not be settled are determined by a judge, by whichever of a face - to - face trial, video or telephone hearing or determination on the documents is the most appropriate.»

$ 300,000 jury verdict in an excessive force claim against two Kansas City, Missouri, police officers in Missouri State Court.

80 Every judge or officer of a court in Ontario, including a deputy judge of the Small Claims Court, shall, before entering on the duties of office, take and sign the following oath or affirmation in either the English or French langcourt in Ontario, including a deputy judge of the Small Claims Court, shall, before entering on the duties of office, take and sign the following oath or affirmation in either the English or French langCourt, shall, before entering on the duties of office, take and sign the following oath or affirmation in either the English or French language:

Obtained a defense verdict in Massachusetts Superior Court in favor of a multinational high - tech services company and its Chief Financial Officer in a case involving discrimination and retaliation claims brought by a former senior executive seeking a seven - figure award.

As counsel for the plaintiffs, Matthew has won numerous out - of - court settlements in a class action and collective action discrimination, overtime and education claims — including many cases brought by police officers and educators.

The Court of Appeal ruled that Lombard could rely upon the exclusion, such that the CGL policy did not provide coverage to Wentworth in the event of a personal injury claim by an executive officer.

John has represented police officers and public officials in state and federal court in all aspects of civil rights litigation including claims involving use of force, wrongful arrest and land use.

Brock is representing Hexagone as lead counsel in a large ongoing reorganization involving significant litigation involving commercial, constitutional and construction litigation before courts and claims officers.

A Richmond Circuit Court sets aside a $ 250,000 jury award for plaintiff in her suit against defendant Chesterfield County police officer on a claim of malicious prosecution; applying a 2011 Virginia Supreme Court case, the court says defendant officer investigatCourt sets aside a $ 250,000 jury award for plaintiff in her suit against defendant Chesterfield County police officer on a claim of malicious prosecution; applying a 2011 Virginia Supreme Court case, the court says defendant officer investigatCourt case, the court says defendant officer investigatcourt says defendant officer investigated...

They include an online court for money claims up to # 25,000 in value, where litigants would not be represented by lawyers; creating a new tier of case officers to do uncontentious judicial work; and for civil work with a regional connection to be carried out in the regions, where possible.

It is an open question whether the court in Welsh would have condoned an undercover officer posing as a Christian minister claiming to have power to affect police investigations through prayer.

«[T] he weight of authority suggests that accurate news reporting — even when it is likely to have an adverse impact on the subjects of the report — usually does not give rise to an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress»: Yesterday, a unanimous three - judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a decision affirming a federal district court's dismissal of claims for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress asserted by two former undercover police officers against a television station in Albuquerque that had revealed their identities and their undercover status in the context of a televised report about their suspected involvement in an alleged incident of sexual assCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a decision affirming a federal district court's dismissal of claims for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress asserted by two former undercover police officers against a television station in Albuquerque that had revealed their identities and their undercover status in the context of a televised report about their suspected involvement in an alleged incident of sexual asscourt's dismissal of claims for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress asserted by two former undercover police officers against a television station in Albuquerque that had revealed their identities and their undercover status in the context of a televised report about their suspected involvement in an alleged incident of sexual assault.

However, on the facts, the Court of Appeal found that there was no real prospect of the officers succeeding in a claim based on a failure to give them notice of the Commissioner's intention to settle the claim or its terms.

In In re Massey Energy Company Derivative and Class Action Litigation, the Delaware Court of Chancery recently dismissed shareholders» derivative and putative direct claims alleging that Massey's former directors and officers caused...

In complex commercial cases involving economic torts, personal liability of directors and officers, and claims of fraud and conspiracy, the courts require a certain degree of specificity in pleadings and claims are vulnerable to preliminary attacIn complex commercial cases involving economic torts, personal liability of directors and officers, and claims of fraud and conspiracy, the courts require a certain degree of specificity in pleadings and claims are vulnerable to preliminary attacin pleadings and claims are vulnerable to preliminary attack.

Notable mandates: Successfully represented Nor - Man Regional Health Authority at the Supreme Court of Canada in a case dealing with the principle of estoppel by a labour arbitrator; represented an intervenor in another case at the country's top court: Moore v. British Columbia (Education); acted for the private - sector partner in a $ 35 - million P3 deal for claims processing; launched an online privacy compliance forum for privacy offiCourt of Canada in a case dealing with the principle of estoppel by a labour arbitrator; represented an intervenor in another case at the country's top court: Moore v. British Columbia (Education); acted for the private - sector partner in a $ 35 - million P3 deal for claims processing; launched an online privacy compliance forum for privacy officourt: Moore v. British Columbia (Education); acted for the private - sector partner in a $ 35 - million P3 deal for claims processing; launched an online privacy compliance forum for privacy officers.