Sentences with phrase «plaintiffs do»

That efficiency is enhanced when most of the retributive damages awards go to the state because plaintiffs don't plan on being victims of punitive damages awards and they, for the most part, have other incentives to pursue compensatory damages.

There are two additional reasons — not intrinsic to retributive theory per se but re-lated to the fairness considerations that animate retributive justice nonetheless — to ensure that plaintiffs don't enjoy windfalls through awards of retributive damages.

These plaintiffs don't have the benefit of search warrants, they need to rely on discovery.

The plaintiffs do not seek to interrupt the progress of improvements, but they ask to stay revolution; a revolution against the foundations on which property rests; a revolution which is attempted on the allegation of monopoly: we resist the clamor against legislative acts which have vested rights in individuals, on principles of equal justice to the state, and to those who hold those rights under the provisions of the law.

[18] Plaintiffs do not have an ongoing duty to reassess their claims as the matter proceeds: Reimann at para. 44.

«The plaintiffs do not make any claim of physical injury beyond the bare allegation of sexual assault,» he wrote.

Sometimes, for a variety of reasons, plaintiffs do not want information about their federal and state income taxes to become part of the court record.

And even if they had pleaded viable legal theories — which they have not — plaintiffs do not approach alleging their fraud - based claims with the particularity the rules require...

Normally, personal injury plaintiffs do not pay attorney fees upfront.

Claimants and plaintiffs don't have to be present in court, and this has reduced time and expenditure greatly.

2011), Plaintiffs do not seek an injunction.

Naturally, the plaintiffs do not say, which only underscores how this lawsuit is a rhetorical weapon to get media attention, rather than a legitimate legal pursuit.

Plaintiffs do not anticipate their financial position will improve substantially in the near future.

Plaintiffs do have the opportunity, however, to refile by May 26.

State trial and appeals courts have ruled the plaintiffs don't have standing to sue over the scholarships.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court, the Florida Supreme Court may find that the plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the school - choice tax - credit law because it does not utilize public funds.

«I understand why the plaintiffs don't want this question on the ballot,» he said.

«Plaintiffs don't allege that PFOA caused any physical or structural damage to their wells, pipes, taps or showerheads and because they failed to plead any physical injury to their property, they can not state a claim under New York law,» Elissa J. Preheim, an attorney for Honeywell, said in the recent hearing.

The original Ninth Circuit opinion, issued on March 6, said that the plaintiffs do have standing.

Plaintiff did not reveal any confidential information to Defendant, and did not show Defendant any of its source code, either at this meeting or otherwise.»

«Plaintiff does not have to allege an absolute right to receive every text message in order to allege that Apple's intentional acts have caused an actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship,» Koh wrote.

Unlike in those other casee, the plaintiffs did receive some compensation, but at less than $ 1 per hour, far far less than minimum wage.

The district court in First Solar ultimately applied the standard from the Daou line of cases and held that plaintiffs did not need to show that the market reacted to the fact that First Solar had committed fraud in order to satisfy the loss causation requirement.

I thought the judge said that the plaintiff didn't make his case... it was lack of evidence, officially, not because of religion.

Plaintiff does not persuade the Court that the discovery it seeks is necessary to obtain the preliminary injunction.

But the court said the plaintiffs did not demonstrate, with their arguments, how Dr Rawlings» election violated their rights.

Minardo based his decision on his belief that the plaintiffs didn't have standing, a statement the Assembly members disagree with.

However, the court on Friday dismissed the application and said the plaintiffs did not demonstrate in any way that their rights had been violated or would be violated if Dr Rawlings went ahead to contest this year's parliamentary elections on the ticket of the NDC.

In a July 3 decision, the judge described the lawsuit as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation — or SLAPP suit — noting that the plaintiff did not offer enough evidence that the statements were said in a fraudulent manner.

Nb: plaintiffs did file an amended complaint.

The judge would have had to conclude that plaintiffs did not even make a plausible claim, which would have been an extraordinary ruling at this point in the trial — before the defense put on any evidence.

In May 2015, the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in Leon County, Florida, dismissed the original FEA lawsuit after finding that plaintiffs did not have legal standing to sue.

The defendants also argue that the plaintiffs failed to prove they are members of a «suspect class,» which basically means plaintiffs didn't prove that school districts harmed a specific group — in this case, minority kids from low - income families — by moving ineffective teachers into schools populated by members of the group.

push -LRB--LCB--RCB--RRB-; August, the New Hampshire Supreme Court unanimously upheld the tax credit scholarship, ruling that the plaintiffs did not have standing because the scholarships were funded through -LSB-...]

Although the New Hampshire Supreme Court did not touch on the Winn decision, it did agree the plaintiffs did not have standing.

The judge in the case, Jed Rakoff, didn't just quietly disagree with the plaintiffs in his decision, but rather in his eighteen - page decision on the case had some strong words for the plaintiffs, including stating how «remarkable» it was that the plaintiffs didn't demonstrate any secret meetings, collusion attempts, email records, or other examples of conspiracy.

The 1st Circuit found problems with this argument, the first being that plaintiffs did not raise it in their briefing before the district court.

According to the judge's decision, the plaintiffs did not establish that Petland and Hunte had a duty to inform customers that their puppies were from mills; thus could not sue the companies for non-disclosure.

In the first Complaint discussed in Animal Law Coalition's reports below, the court found the plaintiffs did not allege facts showing the RICO violations proximately caused their injuries.

(The attorneys for Vox and the plaintiff did not respond to my attempts to contact them by email and phone for comments on the case by my deadline.)

However, although the latest decision has concluded that the social media giant was at fault for censoring the image, the evidence produced by the plaintiff did «not demonstrate with the necessary rigour that the deactivation -LSB-...] was due to the posting of the painting».

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 action.

It gets even murkier if you add that the infringement was known about but the plaintiff didn't do anything about it.

A number of legal bloggers roundly condemned Jones Day for bringing the suit, with Public Citizen lawyer Paul Alan Levy leading the backlash with his post at the Consumer Law & Policy Blog in which he said that the lawsuit deserved a prize for «grossest abuse of trademark law to suppress speech the plaintiff doesn't like.»

Of course, the plaintiffs didn't obtain a full victory.

Although the plaintiff did not seek medical attention before the wedding, he later alleged «significant daily left hand and wrist pain» to the point that he «is unable to grip to hold his chain saw,» and therefore was «completely disabled from doing his work.»

The plaintiff did not raise any concerns about her mood or her alcohol dependence with her physicians until December 2009 during an unrelated consultation with Dr. Zentner when asked about alcohol consumption and in December 2010, when she reported symptoms of depression to Dr. Swope.

Since the plaintiff did not present evidence showing how long the barrel had been there, there was no way the plaintiff could prove that the department had actual or constructive knowledge of the barrel's placement.

Plaintiff did not submit any billing records, but relied on six charts showing the litigation phases coupled with hourly rates / total hours for each working professional.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the plaintiff did not act reasonably although it respected his right to turn down treatment options.