Sentences with phrase «particular defendant»

Consider crime statistics: the data on which a computer will base its predictions may reflect factors logically not connected with particular defendants: arrest patterns that match or do not match the characteristics of the accused person; the impact of poverty or race on conviction rates of people «comparable» to the accused; hard - to - quantify characteristics of accused or convicted people like educational achievement or religious practices.

Negligence law applies to cases that arise out of injuries or deaths caused by a failure to exercise the care required by particular defendants toward those they have injured.

For example, while no one particular defendant's negligence alone may be sufficient to have caused the plaintiff's injuries, the collective negligence of multiple defendants may have caused the plaintiff's injuries.

Ultimately, it is a process of problem solving and this is always made easier when you are being represented by someone experienced, not only in the litigation process, but who has experience of dealing with the particular Defendant; in other words, you want someone who can anticipate what the Defendant might do in certain situations.

Obviously, to the extent that others are at fault, one particular defendant will not offer you the full value of your case.

Many factors come into play such as the severity of your injuries, the specifics of the incident and even the particular defendant.

Woodford held that failure to present mitigating evidence did not prejudice this particular defendant's sentence.

Learn the outcomes of prior cases involving a particular defendant or defective product.

That was especially bad news for this particular defendant.

For example, a particular defendant might carry on business in Ontario but still rebut the preumption of jurisdiction by showing that its dealings with the plaintiff were entirely conducted elsewhere and had no other connection to Ontario.

Further, the comments had nothing to do with this particular defendant, in contrast to State v. Thompson.

If the lower court finds that there was a systemic breakdown affecting this particular defendant, an indigent Vietnamese immigrant who allegedly killed another Vietnamese man and his 2 - year - old son and severely injured the man's wife in execution - style, back - of - the - head shootings, Justice Harold D. Melton wrote for the majority in the 4 - 3 decision, then that determination must be factored into an analysis of whether the defendant's speedy trial rights were violated.

Would any particular defendants be entitled to relief, and how would they be identified?

In determining the foreseeability of harm, the court observed the proper question to ask is whether a reasonable person, having the background and capacity for understanding the particular defendant, would have appreciated the risk.

Consider, for example, proof of causation, i.e. a plaintiff's claim that a particular defendant is actually responsible for her injuries.

The reason that they nonetheless face a collective action problem in the context of small, traditional tort suits featuring individual fact patterns (slip - and - fall cases are good examples) is that they are being sued by many different trial lawyers (each of whom may only have one case pending against a particular defendant at one time) who are themselves each suing many different corporate defendants.

Likewise, flexible statutory procedures for withdrawing guilty pleas might give courts appropriate discretion to determine whether the interests of justice would be served by allowing a particular defendant to withdraw a plea entered into on the basis of incomplete information.

This was so because the manufacturer specifically knew that this company owned one of its forklifts and therefore the risk of injury to this particular defendant was foreseeable.

But now, if only in exceptional cases, it seems sufficient if the finger points at a group of which the negligent defendant is in some sense a «part», even if it doesn't point at a particular defendant?

What was ultimately important in restitution was whether or not, and to what extent, the particular defendant had benefited.

A benefit was not always worth its market value to a particular defendant.

The bill would require plaintiffs to disclose who the owner of a patent is before a lawsuit is filed and demand that plaintiffs explain why they are suing a particular defendant in their court pleadings.