Sentences with phrase «order granting summary judgment»

Because the evidentiary material presented to the trial court establishes disputed material facts about the Sellers» and Broker's actual knowledge of the alleged defects in the residence, we reverse the order granting summary judgment.

Levy v. Friedman (216 A.D. 2D 18) order granting summary judgment dismissing broker's complaint affirmed; commission due upon title actually closing; broker's claim of seller / client's willful default under contract of sale hasno merit where seller did not enter into contract of sale and therefore could not willfully default.

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's order granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs, and denying summary judgment for the defendants, in a dispute over insurance coverage.

The plaintiff Saleh Mizyed appealed from the trial judge's order granting summary judgment, which dismissed his medical malpractice complaint against the defendant Palos Community Hospital.

Accordingly, it reversed the order granting summary judgment to Academy on those claims.

An order granting summary judgment shall set forth the undisputed material facts and legal determinations on which the court granted summary judgment.

Harpole v. Powell County Title Co., 371 Mont. 543, 309 P. 3d 34, 2013 MT 257 — Successfully upheld order granting summary judgment in favor of title insurer.

(April 5, 2012), the 2nd Circuit confirmed that the § 512 (c) safe harbour requires knowledge or awareness of specific infringing activity but vacated the order granting summary judgment because they were of the view that a reasonable jury could find that YouTube had actual knowledge or awareness of specific infringing activity on its website.

Not exact matches

In one case, Denenberg allegedly prepared a «fake order» in which the court granted his client a motion for summary judgment, dismissing a claim against it with prejudice, the suit said.

Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Microsoft Corporation, Electronic Arts Inc., Harmonix Music Systems, Inc., Majesco Entertainment Co., Ubisoft Inc., and Nintendo of America Inc.'s (collectively «Defendants») on Plaintiff Richard J. Baker's («Baker») claims for infringement pursuant to the Court's ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS» MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (D.I. 135) dated January 3, 2017 and filed on January 4, 2017.

By order dated July 14, 2014, the motion judge, the Honourable Justice Martin S. James of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice sitting at Ottawa, granted Mr. Arnone's motion for summary judgment and ordered Best Theratronics to pay (i) damages equal to the gross amount of the salary Arnone would have earned until he qualified for an unreduced pension, less payments made to him to satisfy the statutory obligations of the employer, (ii) $ 65,000 representing the present value of the loss of an unreduced pension, (iii) a retirement allowance equal to 30 weeks» pay, and (iv) costs totaling $ 52,280.09.

In an order [PDF] filed on October 4, 2012, Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment dismissing Linda Eagle's claims that she had been damaged by her former employer's theft of her LinkedIn account.

In doing so, he said he felt comfortable falling in line with one judicial line of thought that says judges can make findings of fact in order to grant summary judgment.

District Court amended its original claim construction order based on the PTAB's ruling and granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Ford on the ground that the express disclaimer prevented the patent - in - suit from covering Ford's vehicles.

In a 58 - page ruling in 2010, Ontario motions Justice Duncan Grace granted summary judgment against Hryniak in both cases and ordered him to pay $ 2.1 million, but dismissed the motions against Peebles and Cassels Brock, ruling those facts required a trial.

Even where examining the facts suggests that a motion for summary judgment might be in order, that calculus might look very different when one learns that the trial judge has granted only 18 percent of the summary judgment motions brought before him or her since 2010.

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.

Cases were included in the sample if they contained one brief in support of a motion for summary judgment, one in opposition, and an order granting or denying the motion.

For these reasons the Court overturned the lower court's order that had granted summary judgment in favor of the husband and it granted the wife's cross motion for summary judgment ordering that the prenuptial agreement was unenforceable.

In its order granting Interstate's motion for summary judgment, the trial judge agreed.

On April 13, 2012, Justice Sheffield of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released his decision granting an order for summary judgment in our client's favour.

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.

However, while writing his reasons, the motion judge decided to resolve the motions on a fifth basis: he would grant a notional cross-motion by the respondents for partial summary judgment of their claim for breach of fiduciary duty and order a trial or additional summary judgment motions to prove victimization, harm and causation of harm, and to quantify the individual respondents» damages, if any.

[Dismissed: appeal from order granting Society's summary judgment motion to place children in father's care.]»

In its review of the grant of summary judgment, the Supreme Court of Iowa stated that a mechanic's lien should be construed liberally in order to «promote restitution, the prevention of unjust enrichment, and to assist parties in obtaining justice.»

Coldwell Banker Village Green Realty v. Pillsworth (32 A.D. 3rd 568 [3rd Dept.]-RRB-- Order of the Supreme Court granting broker's motion for summary judgment affirmed; in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the broker's right to a commission is not contingent upon performance of the underlying real estate contract, receipt by the seller of the sale price, transfer of title, or even a formal execution of a legally enforceable sales contract; seller could not utilize the provisions of a subsequently executed sales contract wherein seller agreed to pay broker's commission «if and when title closes» as a bootstrap to avoid her obligation to the broker under the clear and unambiguous provisions of the listing agreement as such language was contained in the contract of sale prepared by counsel and to which broker was not a party; provisions in listing agreement that seller would accept a binder or purchase contract contingent upon purchaser's ability to obtain conventional financing and provided any other contingencies in the binder or purchase agreement are acceptable to the seller speak only to the type of purchase offer that seller was obligated to accept and does not alter or otherwise qualify broker's right to a commission

Day Realty v. Spiegel (216 A.D. 2D 241) order granting broker's motion for summary judgment reversed; issue of fact raised precluding summary judgment as to whether or not commission agreement conditioned the earning of the commission upon the closing of the sales transaction.

Signature Realty, Inc. v. Tallman (2 N.Y. 3d 810)- option to renew a lease falls within the broad category of «a lease, rental agreement or other occupancy» in the parties» agreement unambiguously requiring payment of 10 percent of the rent over the period of occupancy; order of Appellate Division reversed, not in the Court's power to grant broker summary relief as broker did not cross-move 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.

¶ 1 After purchasing a home in Enid, Oklahoma, Plaintiff Jason Stauff (Buyer) filed an action alleging violations of Oklahoma's Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act (Disclosure Act) and negligence against the sellers, real estate broker, and home inspectors.1 Buyer appeals a single trial court order granting 1) summary judgment in favor of Defendants Kimberly Bartnick and her husband, Roy Bartnick (collectively the Bartnicks or Sellers) and also 2) the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to 12 O.S. 2011 2012 (B)(6) filed by Defendant Paramount Homes Real Estate Co. (Broker or Paramount).