Sentences with phrase «plaintiffs in the case hold»

The two plaintiffs in the case hold drilling leases with two gas companies, Norse and Chesapeake.

Not exact matches

Disney shareholders lost their case but the final ruling set a new bar for directors when approving these kinds of exit packages: «If a director acts with conscious disregard — in other words, a looking away — rather than a deliberate intent to violate his duties, he can still be held liable for acting in bad faith,» plaintiffs» attorney Steven G. Schullman told the New York Times back in 2006.

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.

In its first case to address the ministerial exception doctrine in light of the Supreme Court's Hosanna - Tabor ruling, the court held that plaintiff Philip Cannata, a music director, was a «minister» for purposes of the ministerial exception doctrinIn its first case to address the ministerial exception doctrine in light of the Supreme Court's Hosanna - Tabor ruling, the court held that plaintiff Philip Cannata, a music director, was a «minister» for purposes of the ministerial exception doctrinin light of the Supreme Court's Hosanna - Tabor ruling, the court held that plaintiff Philip Cannata, a music director, was a «minister» for purposes of the ministerial exception doctrine.

The plaintiff, however, is urging the court to hold that Sections 293 and 294 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) of 201 which the EFCC relied on to secure remand orders from a magistrate court were inapplicable in his case.

The court similarly held that the issue of locus standi of the Plaintiff must not be the one he shared with other member of the society stressing that the interest he shared in instituting the case must be personal and same was not disclosed in his affidavit.

Their first meeting, and interactions with Edie Windsor, the plaintiff in the landmark 2013 civil rights case in which the Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of «marriage» and «spouse» can apply only to opposite - sex unions was unconstitutional.

He said, «The trial judge distinguished the Lagos State case from the present one, and held that whereas the court of Appeal so held against Lagos State environmental sanitation days on the ground of same not being a creation of law thus could not be enforced against the plaintiff therein, whereas the Oyo State environmental sanitation days are held pursuant to the provisions of the Oyo State Environmental Law of 2012, 2015, and regulations made thereunder, making the Oyo State exercise legal and constitutional unlike the scenario created in the Lagos case.

Plaintiff alleges that any private loans held by Defendant which are not «qualified educational loans» are dischargeable in this case without the need to show undue hardship.

[34] In Resurfice, this Court summarized the cases as holding that a material contribution approach may be appropriate where it is «impossible» for the plaintiff to prove causation on the «but for» test and where it is clear that the defendant breached its duty of care (acted negligently) in a way that exposed the plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of injurIn Resurfice, this Court summarized the cases as holding that a material contribution approach may be appropriate where it is «impossible» for the plaintiff to prove causation on the «but for» test and where it is clear that the defendant breached its duty of care (acted negligently) in a way that exposed the plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of injurin a way that exposed the plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of injury.

In the classic case of Robinson v. Lindsay, the Supreme Court of Washington held that a 13 - year - old minor child who drove a snowmobile — and as a result caused the plaintiff's finger to be severed — was to be held to an adult standard of care.

The court held that the plaintiff's expert witness» sole supporting contention was that, based on his own knowledge, this type of injury would not have occurred without negligence, and therefore it did not allude to an analysis of the facts in this case consistent with other experts in the field.

The plaintiff in that case was a 62 year old mechanic and press maintainer with 33 years of service, and was held to be entitled to 22 months of notice.

In such cases, as the Aronberg Green Legal Team know, plaintiffs injured by the negligence of a child will often attempt to sue and hold liable the parent or parents of the negligent child.

Both the trial judge and the Court of Appeal held that the case was adversarial, and was not being brought for the benefit of or in the interests of the plan as a whole, but for the particular class of plan members representative by the plaintiffs.

However, all of this changed last year when the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Joseph v. Paramount Canada's Wonderland, 1 a case in which, under Ontario's new Limitations Act, the plaintiff's attorney failed to issue the statement of claim within the limitation period.2 The Court of Appeal unanimously eliminated any discretion that the court had to extend limitation periods based on «special circumstances» and held, subject to only a few exceptions, that the expiry of the two - year limitation period in Ontario is a complete bar to a lawsuit.

Despite numerous case planning conferences and previous orders in this case, the plaintiff at the most recent case planning conference appeared to appreciate for the first time that she is not entitled to hold medical information in her hands and to refuse to disclose it until she is satisfied with her diagnosis.

A broad range of experience representing both plaintiffs and defendants in litigation - from small, closely held companies to Fortune 500 companies - in every kind of case - from commercial real estate disputes to alleged securities fraud to fights among business partners.

Despite agreeing with the plaintiffs that this was a case in which the hard drive was to be regarded as a file repository and not a document itself, Mr. Justice Myers held that such a distinction was not to be determinative of the application.

At Paragraphs 7 - 10, the trial judge (Madam Justice Humphries) explained why in this case the Plaintiff had «sufficient reason'to bring the suit is Supreme Court holding that:

The Supreme Court held that that a plaintiff in a medical battery / lack - of - consent case need not prove that the defendant surgeon performed the unauthorized operation with the intent to harm the patient.

In York University v. Bell Canada Enterprises, the court held that «the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of defamation and the claim appeared to be reasonable and made in good faith»In York University v. Bell Canada Enterprises, the court held that «the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of defamation and the claim appeared to be reasonable and made in good faith»in good faith».

The Court held that a defendant, in this case the AG, has no right to inquire into the legal advice given to the plaintiff by the plaintiff's lawyer — this is purely a matter between solicitor and client.

Subsequently, many courts have interpreted Wyeth as affirmatively holding both that the burden in such a case is on the defendant to prove the FDA would have rejected the warning advocated by the plaintiff, and that the standard by which this must be shown is an «exacting» one beyond the normal preponderance - of - the - evidence standard.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, citing Hill v. Hamilton Wentworth Police Services Board for the principle that a plaintiff suing for wrongful conviction (or in this case, wrongful detention) can not be held to have discovered the facts in support of his or her claim until there is a formal ruling or finding confirming the wrongful conviction (or detention).

Now, as our Delray Beach personal injury lawyers know, while people can be held responsible for personal injuries that took place on their property even if they had little or nothing to do with actually causing the injury, the plaintiff's attorneys in this case successfully argued that the restaurant operator actually had a hand in causing the tragic death.

Eagle Harbor Holdings / Medius v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 3:11 - cv -05503-BHS (W.D. Washington 2015)-- Successfully defended Ford in patent infringement trial in which plaintiff asserted several patents against Ford's SYNC infotainment system and» automatic parking system.

The plaintiff in the case argued that the court should not adopt a per se rule regarding the age at which a child can be held liable, but it should look at each case individually.

I.E.E. International Electronics & Engineering, S.A. v. TK Holdings Inc., Case No. 10 - cv - 13487 (E.D. Michigan 2015)-- Successfully represented plaintiff / counter-defendant in patent infringement action relating to capacitive occupant sensors.

This case holds that specific jurisdiction over a defendant arising solely from the fact that it sold a defective product in a particular state or country which it caused an injury to be limited to plaintiffs who actually purchased the product or suffered an injury in that state.

The standard which plaintiffs are held to in civil cases, including automobile accident cases, is called the «preponderance of the evidence» standard.

In the present case, however, as in the Pilon and the Pisani cases, I see valid reasons not to hold the plaintiff to the strict technical adherence to the requirements of the section.In the present case, however, as in the Pilon and the Pisani cases, I see valid reasons not to hold the plaintiff to the strict technical adherence to the requirements of the section.in the Pilon and the Pisani cases, I see valid reasons not to hold the plaintiff to the strict technical adherence to the requirements of the section...

Recent case law in Ontario and British Columbia has also held that plaintiffs may not claim ATE insurance premiums as disbursements.

Although the two plaintiffs in these cases may have had legitimate claims and very real injuries, they were not compensated for any damages and were not able to hold any wrongdoers accountable because they did not comply with Maryland's strict law governing lawsuits against local government entities.

The court ultimately decided the case in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the «garden variety» accident giving rise to the case didn't involve any allegations that the defendant violated any professional duty.

[26] In the present case, the trial judge held that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent because the plaintiff could have been struck by the defendant's vehicle if he had been a jogger, rollerblader or regular pedestrian rather than riding his bicycle.

In reaching this decision the court referred to a leading BC Court of Appeal Case where it was held that «a Plaintiff does not have an on - going obligation to assess the quantum (value) of a claim and that the point in time for a consideration of whether a plaintiff had a sufficient reason for bringing a proceeding in the Supreme Court is the time of the initiation of the action.&raquIn reaching this decision the court referred to a leading BC Court of Appeal Case where it was held that «a Plaintiff does not have an on - going obligation to assess the quantum (value) of a claim and that the point in time for a consideration of whether a plaintiff had a sufficient reason for bringing a proceeding in the Supreme Court is the time of the initiation of the actioPlaintiff does not have an on - going obligation to assess the quantum (value) of a claim and that the point in time for a consideration of whether a plaintiff had a sufficient reason for bringing a proceeding in the Supreme Court is the time of the initiation of the action.&raquin time for a consideration of whether a plaintiff had a sufficient reason for bringing a proceeding in the Supreme Court is the time of the initiation of the actioplaintiff had a sufficient reason for bringing a proceeding in the Supreme Court is the time of the initiation of the action.&raquin the Supreme Court is the time of the initiation of the action.»

It was held that court staff was not in error in this case by choosing to mail the materials back to Plaintiff's counsel, rather than telephoning her as she specifically requested.

The plaintiff in that case claimed that their product's spring mechanism was legally protected as a visually distinctive part of their product's trade dress, but the Supreme Court held that the spring mechanism was ineligible for trademark protection insofar as it was a functional component of the product.

Strathy C.J.O. provided some past examples of cases where conduct was held to be an abuse of process, such as initiating proceedings through a nominal plaintiff in order to oppress the defendant, or where the non-party has engaged in conduct that amounts to the tort of maintenance.

I was able to obtain summary judgment based upon the statute of limitations, in which the court found that the doctors» advice to the plaintiff that «nothing was wrong with her», was not sufficient to delay the discovery of her injuries so as to avoid the bar of the statute of limitations; and Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village, the leading case in California which held that provisions in the CC&R s are presumed to be reasonable and enforceable.

The court's opinion in the case, O'Neal v. Remington Arms Company, held that the plaintiff submitted enough proof of negligence on the part of the gun manufacturer for the case to proceed towards trial.

Stephen E. Goldman, the firm's managing partner, has served as counsel for insurers in many significant property insurance and class action cases, including Standard Fire v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345 (2013)(holding that the plaintiff's stipulation can not defeat federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act) and Travco v. Ward, 736 S.E. 2d 321 (Va. 2012)(affirming the trial court's judgment that property insurance policies do not cover losses caused by the presence of Chinese drywall).

The Connecticut Supreme Court recently held that defendants were entitled to summary judgment in a premises liability case, finding that the plaintiff had failed to meet her burden of proving constructive notice of the allegedly defective condition.

Instead, the Court held that under Rhode Island law, the existence of a duty of care is determined on a case - by - case basis considering the following factors: (1) the foreseeability of the harm; (2) the degree of certainty of injury; (3) the closeness of connection between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injury; (4) the policy of preventing future harm; (5) the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community in imposing a legal duty; and (6) the relationship between the parties.

Although this is not an employment case and the plaintiff was a business entity and not an individual, the holding in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant will likely have a substantial impact on employment class action litigation.

Analyzing the allegations in the proposed amended complaint, rather than the operative complaint, the court held that the plaintiffs had met their burden to establish the local controversy exception, and therefore instructed that the case be remanded to state court.

The plaintiffs challenged eight restrictions on judicial conduct: 1) the prohibition on judicial candidates campaigning as a member of a political organization, 2) the prohibition on judicial candidates making speeches for or against political organizations or candidates, 3) the ban on judicial candidates making contributions to political causes or candidates, 4) the prohibition on judicial candidates from publicly endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, 5) the prohibition on judges from acting as a leader or holding office in a policitical organization, 6) the prohibition on judicial candidates knowingly or recklessly making false statements during campaigns, 7) the ban on judicial candidates making misleading statements, and 8) the prohibition on candidates making pledges, promises, or committments in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court.

In this case, the Court of Appeals held that the misdiagnosis claim could stand independently because the plaintiff disavowed any negligence related to the underlying surgical procedure.

Stevens v. State of Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (162 F. 3d 195, 2nd Circuit 1998) which held that qui tam plaintiffs have a private property interest in the outcome of such cases.