Sentences with phrase «plaintiff in the court action»

Mike Restoule, who is chairman of the Robinson Huron Treaty Trust, a member of the Nipissing First Nation and a representative plaintiff in the court action, told Legal Feeds that the chiefs in the Robinson Treaties negotiations held firm for perpetual annuities in the treaty.

Not exact matches

Meanwhile, in 2009 Ontario courts approved the Imax class - action suit and ruled it would be tried as a global class, meaning any investor who bought shares, whether on the TSX or Nasdaq, can be included as a plaintiff.

The first line of cases began with In re Daou Sys., where the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court's decision dismissing a Section 10 (b) action on the ground that the plaintiffs had not alleged any disclosures that defendants were engaging in improper accounting practiceIn re Daou Sys., where the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court's decision dismissing a Section 10 (b) action on the ground that the plaintiffs had not alleged any disclosures that defendants were engaging in improper accounting practicein improper accounting practices.

Based upon this analysis, we provide our clients with recommendations concerning whether they should: (1) move to be appointed lead plaintiff; (2) file an individual non-class action in federal or state court; or (3) take no active role, that is, remain a class member in an action initiated by others.

Plaintiffs in the other two court actions are Jewish business people who make similar allegations.

The action of testifying has an intimate relation to an institution — the judiciary; a place — the court; a social function — the lawyer, the judge; an action — to plead, that is, to be plaintiff or defendant in a trial.

The conclusion of the Court is that plaintiff's predecessor originally acquired a valid trade - mark in the word «Tabasco» as applied to pepper sauce, and that, by no action or inaction during the subsequent years, has plaintiff lost the resultant right to its exclusive use.

Publication of the editorial came on the same day as two other events of note, first, the release of a new book, Back in the Game, in which sports neurologist Jeffrey Kutcher and award - winning journalist Joanne Gerstner repeatedly and pointedly criticize the media for «irresponsible» reporting on CTE, and second, the filing of a class action lawsuit in federal court in Los Angeles against Pop Warner, USA Football, and the National Operating Committee on Standards For Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE) which assumes as scientific fact that repetitive head impacts sustained in youth football «exposed» plaintiffs» sons to CTE, and led one to engage in «erratic and reckless behavior» resulting in his untimely death, and the other to take his own life.

There are also cases of other law - enforcement agencies taking related actions, such as Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) arresting and deporting back an in - coming witness or plaintiff who has valid court papers and visa.

And that «if payments have been made to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants under agreements other the two * dated 26th April 2006 *, which were terminated, issues relating to those payments would have to be determined in a forum other than this Court (Supreme Court) and in a different action, since they do not come within the issue of constitutional interpretation raised by the Plaintiff's writ».

In Greene County Supreme Court on Wednesday, the plaintiff's attorney, Elizabeth Saylor, argued that the board's actions had been «arbitrary and capricious» and «undermines the election law» that otherwise has far lower limits for corporate contributions.

July 14, 2017 — / PR NEWSWIRE / - Ruby Corp. and Ruby Life Inc. (ruby), and a proposed class of plaintiffs, co-led by Dowd & Dowd, P.C., The Driscoll Firm, P.C., and Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC, have reached a proposed settlement agreement resolving the class action lawsuits that were filed beginning July 2015 following a data breach of ruby's computer network and subsequent release of certain personal information of customers of Ashley Madison, an online dating website owned and operated by Ruby Life Inc. (formerly Avid Dating Life Inc.) The lawsuits, alleging inadequate data security practices and misrepresentations regarding Ashley Madison, have been consolidated in a multi-district litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

The class action was filed earlier this month in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, in Washington, on behalf of some 100,000 individuals who attended such schools from 1890 until the present day, said Jeffrey M. Herman, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs will essentially be asking the court to overturn a 1977 ruling in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, in part by arguing that unions have gone too far in recent years allowing their collective bargaining efforts to become intertwined with political activism, which then violates the plaintiffs rights to free speech by forcing them to fund political actions they are often opposed to.

In April 2012, three representative plaintiffs brought the class action lawsuit to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto on behalf of all drivers who incurred tolls and / or additional charges to the 407 ETR, and had their license plate denied after they had filed a consumer proposal or a bankruptcy proceedinIn April 2012, three representative plaintiffs brought the class action lawsuit to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto on behalf of all drivers who incurred tolls and / or additional charges to the 407 ETR, and had their license plate denied after they had filed a consumer proposal or a bankruptcy proceedinin Toronto on behalf of all drivers who incurred tolls and / or additional charges to the 407 ETR, and had their license plate denied after they had filed a consumer proposal or a bankruptcy proceeding.

«Plaintiff continues to evade the one action that might definitively establish its [his science's] respectability — by objecting, in the courts of Virginia, British Columbia and elsewhere, to the release of his research in this field.

Arizona Court of Appeals rules in climate case: Court rejects governor's argument that legislature can defeat the public trust, assumes without deciding that atmosphere is a public trust asset, and rules that the plaintiff did not assert adequate grounds for court acCourt of Appeals rules in climate case: Court rejects governor's argument that legislature can defeat the public trust, assumes without deciding that atmosphere is a public trust asset, and rules that the plaintiff did not assert adequate grounds for court acCourt rejects governor's argument that legislature can defeat the public trust, assumes without deciding that atmosphere is a public trust asset, and rules that the plaintiff did not assert adequate grounds for court accourt action.

I must say that I find it somewhat ironic that a jerk who claims he is continually attacked should be the plaintiff in six actions before the court and the defendant in none.

Mann is the plaintiff in two actions before the court — one against CEI / Simberg / NR / Steyn and one against Tim Ball.

In King County Superior Court, a case had to be stayed while a party sought new counsel after their attorney acknowledged that he falsified a memo and emails before turning them over to plaintiffs in a nationwide class - action lawsuit.7 Similarly, this spring, U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan, in a 500 - page opinion, blasted a legal team (who previously had «won» a $ 19 billion judgment in an Ecuadorean court) for their «egregious fraud» which included ghostwriting «independent reports.&raquIn King County Superior Court, a case had to be stayed while a party sought new counsel after their attorney acknowledged that he falsified a memo and emails before turning them over to plaintiffs in a nationwide class - action lawsuit.7 Similarly, this spring, U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan, in a 500 - page opinion, blasted a legal team (who previously had «won» a $ 19 billion judgment in an Ecuadorean court) for their «egregious fraud» which included ghostwriting «independent reports.&rCourt, a case had to be stayed while a party sought new counsel after their attorney acknowledged that he falsified a memo and emails before turning them over to plaintiffs in a nationwide class - action lawsuit.7 Similarly, this spring, U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan, in a 500 - page opinion, blasted a legal team (who previously had «won» a $ 19 billion judgment in an Ecuadorean court) for their «egregious fraud» which included ghostwriting «independent reports.&raquin a nationwide class - action lawsuit.7 Similarly, this spring, U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan, in a 500 - page opinion, blasted a legal team (who previously had «won» a $ 19 billion judgment in an Ecuadorean court) for their «egregious fraud» which included ghostwriting «independent reports.&rCourt Judge Lewis Kaplan, in a 500 - page opinion, blasted a legal team (who previously had «won» a $ 19 billion judgment in an Ecuadorean court) for their «egregious fraud» which included ghostwriting «independent reports.&raquin a 500 - page opinion, blasted a legal team (who previously had «won» a $ 19 billion judgment in an Ecuadorean court) for their «egregious fraud» which included ghostwriting «independent reports.&raquin an Ecuadorean court) for their «egregious fraud» which included ghostwriting «independent reports.&rcourt) for their «egregious fraud» which included ghostwriting «independent reports.»

After he successfully defended one such driver last year when the court ruled that the ticket had nothing to do with the statute being relied upon, that client turned into the lead plaintiff in a putative class action lawsuit that Jones recently filed attacking this type of enforcement.

Greenfield argues that Ginsburg advocated congressional action in Ledbetter because the Court had determined that it could not make allowances for a plaintiff who filed a complaint about unequal pay where the 180 - day deadline for filing complaints was set by statute and could not be waived.

In his June 12 decision in Cirvek Fund I., l.p.c. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada, Quebec Superior Court Justice Stéphane Sansfaçon weighed the actions of the plaintiff and the fees charged by its lawyers in the casIn his June 12 decision in Cirvek Fund I., l.p.c. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada, Quebec Superior Court Justice Stéphane Sansfaçon weighed the actions of the plaintiff and the fees charged by its lawyers in the casin Cirvek Fund I., l.p.c. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada, Quebec Superior Court Justice Stéphane Sansfaçon weighed the actions of the plaintiff and the fees charged by its lawyers in the casin the case.

In the recent decision of Dennis v Canada, the Federal Court upheld the principle of the «no - costs» approach for plaintiffs who wish to discontinue an action under Rule 334.39 (1) of the Federal Court Rules (the «Rules»).

First, the Court of Appeal reasoned that since the Courts of Justice Act gives the court discretion to vary the interest rate and period, the plaintiffs in tort actions involving motor vehicle accidents do not have a vested right in a particular rate of prejudgment interest until the trial judge determines the interest Court of Appeal reasoned that since the Courts of Justice Act gives the court discretion to vary the interest rate and period, the plaintiffs in tort actions involving motor vehicle accidents do not have a vested right in a particular rate of prejudgment interest until the trial judge determines the interest court discretion to vary the interest rate and period, the plaintiffs in tort actions involving motor vehicle accidents do not have a vested right in a particular rate of prejudgment interest until the trial judge determines the interest rate.

A971301, September 3, 1998, Boyd J., the court awarded special costs against the plaintiff in a Wills Variation action.

Reasons for judgement were released recently by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, demonstrating that having a Plaintiff's claim dismissed for failing to discharge obligations under the BC Supreme Court Rules is a «draconian remedy «which will not lightly be granted in a personal injury action where liability is admitted.

While the BC Supreme Court Rules generally deprive a Plaintiff of costs who bring an action to trial that could have been brought in small claims court the BC Court of Appeal clarified that having «sufficient reason'to sue in the BC Supreme Court is not limited to quantum of damages aCourt Rules generally deprive a Plaintiff of costs who bring an action to trial that could have been brought in small claims court the BC Court of Appeal clarified that having «sufficient reason'to sue in the BC Supreme Court is not limited to quantum of damages acourt the BC Court of Appeal clarified that having «sufficient reason'to sue in the BC Supreme Court is not limited to quantum of damages aCourt of Appeal clarified that having «sufficient reason'to sue in the BC Supreme Court is not limited to quantum of damages aCourt is not limited to quantum of damages alone.

[18] I am not persuaded that any documents and witness statements provided by the defendant to the plaintiff during the course of pre-trial preparation would not have been supplied by the defendant whether the action had been brought in Supreme Court or in Provincial Court.

[37] Further, the plaintiff submits other sufficient reasons to commence action in Supreme Court were the insurer's denial of coverage because the forces were insufficient to cause injury; and because the plaintiff was allegedly a worker, which if proven and given the defendant was, would see the action statute barred pursuant to s. 10 (1) of the WCA.

[39] The strongest reason for bringing the action in the Supreme Court related to the plaintiff's alleged injuries, but that must be closely examined in light of her pre-existing condition.

[44] In summary, the plaintiff has met the burden of proof required, albeit not by a large margin, but I am satisfied on balance that considering the potential damages that could be awarded for the plaintiff's claim and the complications raised by the minimal damage and worker - worker defence, the plaintiff had sufficient reason to bring the action in the Supreme Court of British ColumbiIn summary, the plaintiff has met the burden of proof required, albeit not by a large margin, but I am satisfied on balance that considering the potential damages that could be awarded for the plaintiff's claim and the complications raised by the minimal damage and worker - worker defence, the plaintiff had sufficient reason to bring the action in the Supreme Court of British Columbiin the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Alternatively, if the matter proceeds in the Supreme Court, it is open to the defendant to ask that a successful plaintiff be denied costs on the basis that there was not sufficient reason to bring the action in the Supreme Court in the first instance.

Madam Justice Baker disagreed finding that ICBC's initial denial of liability, LVI Defence and the Plaintiff's language barriers were all reasons justifying bringing the action in the Supreme Court.

Cove has represented plaintiffs and defendants in federal and state antitrust cases, including price fixing, boycott and monopolization cases, direct and indirect purchaser class actions, and unfair competition actions in federal and state courts across the country.

As well, where the plaintiff elects to bring suit in the Supreme Court, she runs the real risk of an adverse costs outcome if the action is unsuccessful.

Gillette v. N. Dakota Disciplinary Bd., No. 09 - 1598, involved an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief preventing an attorney disciplinary board from prosecuting a disciplinary action for alleged misconduct arising out of plaintiff's representation of Native American clients in tribal court litigation.

For a plaintiff who recovers a sum within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court to recover more than disbursements, the court must make a finding that there was sufficient reason for bringing the action in the Supreme CCourt to recover more than disbursements, the court must make a finding that there was sufficient reason for bringing the action in the Supreme Ccourt must make a finding that there was sufficient reason for bringing the action in the Supreme CourtCourt.

Assume that Mr. Grutman's proposed test is as follows: «If the state long - arm statute is satisfied and defendant has engaged in purposeful conduct directed at the forum state out of which conduct the cause of action arises, and that conduct satisfies the minimum contacts under which substantial justice and fair play make it reasonable to hail defendant into court there, and the forum state has an interest in providing a forum to the plaintiff, then the forum has personal jurisdiction over the defendant for that cause of action.»

[9] In the result, the plaintiff has advanced sufficient reason for having commenced her action in this court and is entitled to her costs pursuant to Rule 6In the result, the plaintiff has advanced sufficient reason for having commenced her action in this court and is entitled to her costs pursuant to Rule 6in this court and is entitled to her costs pursuant to Rule 66.

Furthermore, even if the Court was wrong about the negligence issue, the plaintiff in the negligence action failed to demonstrate that there was a genuine issue for trial on the issue of damages caused by the firm's alleged negligence.

[76] Taking all of these factors into account, I am of the view that there was sufficient reason for the plaintiff to bring her action in Supreme Court.

In future class action claims against nationwide corporate defendants, it appears that the U.S. Supreme Court is generally requiring piecemeal litigation in each state where a plaintiff was injured, instead of allowing for a single consolidated class action in a single state court lawsuiIn future class action claims against nationwide corporate defendants, it appears that the U.S. Supreme Court is generally requiring piecemeal litigation in each state where a plaintiff was injured, instead of allowing for a single consolidated class action in a single state court lawCourt is generally requiring piecemeal litigation in each state where a plaintiff was injured, instead of allowing for a single consolidated class action in a single state court lawsuiin each state where a plaintiff was injured, instead of allowing for a single consolidated class action in a single state court lawsuiin a single state court lawcourt lawsuit.

In Bristol - Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, No. 16 - 466 (June 19, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state court does not generally have specific personal jurisdiction to entertain class - action claims by non-resident plaintiffs against a company headquartered outside of the forum state (here Bristol - Myers Squibb was not based in CaliforniaIn Bristol - Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, No. 16 - 466 (June 19, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state court does not generally have specific personal jurisdiction to entertain class - action claims by non-resident plaintiffs against a company headquartered outside of the forum state (here Bristol - Myers Squibb was not based in CaliforCourt of California, No. 16 - 466 (June 19, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state court does not generally have specific personal jurisdiction to entertain class - action claims by non-resident plaintiffs against a company headquartered outside of the forum state (here Bristol - Myers Squibb was not based in CaliforCourt held that a state court does not generally have specific personal jurisdiction to entertain class - action claims by non-resident plaintiffs against a company headquartered outside of the forum state (here Bristol - Myers Squibb was not based in Califorcourt does not generally have specific personal jurisdiction to entertain class - action claims by non-resident plaintiffs against a company headquartered outside of the forum state (here Bristol - Myers Squibb was not based in Californiain California).

Norminton v. B & B Electronics Ltd., 2009 ABQB 18, [2009] AWLD 1061 In this negligence action, I represented the plaintiff at trial before the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.

26] Based on those opinions, it was not unreasonable for the plaintiff's counsel to conclude that the action should be commenced in the Supreme Court.

«Without congressional action, plaintiffs» lawyers will continue to file «double dip» claims against the trusts and in the courts.»

[9] In these circumstances, counsel for the plaintiff contends there was good reason to bring his action in this court as opposed to the Small Claims division of the Provincial CourIn these circumstances, counsel for the plaintiff contends there was good reason to bring his action in this court as opposed to the Small Claims division of the Provincial Courin this court as opposed to the Small Claims division of the Provincial Ccourt as opposed to the Small Claims division of the Provincial CourtCourt.

Had the court ruled the other way, a future plaintiff's statements made without an attorney present may have acted to greatly restrict the kinds of actions that plaintiff could bring in the future.

In a suit over contaminated real estate (2017 ONCA 16), the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from the order of Kelly Wright, J., who dismissed the plaintiff's action as statute barred.