Sentences with phrase «plaintiffs over defendants»

Not exact matches

In his study of court decisions on teacher terminations for competency, Zirkel found that «defendant districts prevailed over plaintiff teachers by better than a 3 - to - 1 ratio.»

This is why, when plaintiffs sue over school funding or tenure rules, state governments — not districts — are the defendants.

The format was straightforward — two hours each for the plaintiffs and the defendants, and the judge had provided us with a series of questions on the essential physics that he wanted addressed, as well as requesting a timeline of how our understanding of climate change has evolved over the past 150 years.

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.»

In Max Media FZ LLC v Nimbus Media Pte Ltd [2010] 2 SLR 677 («Max Media»), the plaintiff promised the defendant guaranteed amounts of payments over a period of three years under a sales agency agreement and provided an initial bank guarantee for the sum of US$ 2,500,000 to secure its payment obligations in respect of the first contract year.

The defendant's pickup truck was backing out of a spot two spaces (or at least one space) over from the plaintiff's father's vehicle.

Over and above the analysis of the above - mentioned errors, counsel representing Plaintiffs or Defendants at a jury trial for medical negligence, and at other civil trials, should be aware of the numerous procedural lessons to be gleaned from the Court of Appeal's decision:

The defendant's bumper rode up over the plaintiff's bumper causing it to compress and split the paint on the bumper, and then the defendant's vehicle struck the area around the trunk with the left rear corner of the defendant's vehicle's bumper.

The invasion may be by physical intrusion into a place in which the plaintiff has secluded himself, as when the defendant forces his way into the plaintiff's room in a hotel or insists over the plaintiff's objection in entering his home.

[5] At the certification motion, the Defendant conceded that the Plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claim «pass [ed] over the cause of action and identifiable class criteria» and accepted that there were some common issues for this claim that could be certified (Motion judge's reasons, para. 15).

The plaintiff asked the court to lift the cloak of privilege over the mediation process and the defendant's mediation brief as it would be the only way in which the court could assess the insurer's participation in mediation.

The judge ruled specifically that the defendant was not on actual notice of the accident until over eight months after the accident and that the plaintiff failed to meet the necessary burden of showing how the district would not be «substantially prejudiced» by allowing the plaintiff's case to proceed against the defendants.

A dispute over discovery occurred in Trkulja v Google Inc & Anor (No 3)[2011] VSC 503 (5 October 2011), where the plaintiff claimed access to documents which the defendant indicated were confidential and irrelevant to the proceedings.

The Act permits federal courts to preside over certain class actions in diversity jurisdiction where the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $ 5 million; where the class comprises at least 100 plaintiffs; and where there is at least «minimal diversity» between the parties (i.e., at least one plaintiff class member is diverse from at least one defendant).

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.

Instead of analyzing whether California has jurisdiction over the product liability situation, in general, the high court decides that the determination regarding whether California has jurisdiction over a suit against a particular defendant must be made on a plaintiff by plaintiff basis when «specific jurisdiction» rather than «general jurisdiction» is involved.

In the case of large corporations doing business nationwide, this usually meant that a plaintiff had a large number of states to choose from in which a defendant could be sued on any matter whatsoever which also facilitated the filing of class action lawsuits with plaintiffs from all over the world covered by a single lawsuit.

The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff had attorned to the Ontario court's jurisdiction over the counterclaim by commencing the recognition action.

After suffering an injury in 2008 on premises controlled by the Border Services Agency, a plaintiff brought an action against Border Services and an additional defendant who had control over conditions at the accident location.

If the settling defendant is based in a different jurisdiction than the plaintiff, the defendant should also consider including a choice of venue / jurisdiction provision and a waiver of personal service on the counterparty with respect to any complaint arising from breach of the settlement agreement (e.g., if a company based in San Francisco is sued in a Small Claims Court in New York and the San Francisco company agrees to settle the claim, it should consider including a provision in the agreement that the courts in San Francisco shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any disputes arising from the breach of the settlement agreement, and the counterparty submits to the personal jurisdiction of such courts).

(See Akazaki, «Peering over the plaintiffs» and defendants» parapets: Redesigning Ontario Rule 49 to Encourage Meaningful Offers of Settlement,» The Advocates» Quarterly: 30:285) A rule that guides the court's process must be characterized as procedural, compared to one that contemplates evidence - based awards of compensation

In re Biomet was a products liability case in which the defendant began review by using search terms to cull nearly 20 million documents over the objection of Plaintiffs» Steering Committee.

The case established that the ATS provides jurisdiction over tort actions in such «foreign cubed» cases, brought by non-US plaintiffs against non-US defendants for violations of customary international law, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, committed outside the US.

The defendant has said, over and over again, that the plaintiff is a liar.

The first is that, while the trial judge set out his findings of fact, those findings depend on him having preferred the evidence of the plaintiffs» experts over the evidence of the defendant's experts.

The defendants in Harrison, his buddies, claim the bachelor plaintiff tripped over the chain, and may have punched the window, a submission the trial judge rejected.

The majority concluded that for the court must have personal jurisdiction over the potential defendant, and there was an onus on the Plaintiffs to demonstrate this.

With over decades of experience, litigating for both plaintiffs and defendants on a wide - variety of civil matters, our attorneys are well versed in the idiosyncrasies of the law from all perspectives.

The court found that the defendants had breached their fiduciary obligations to her their fiduciary obligations to her when they used their power over the plaintiff to promote their interests in the employment relationship in a manner that conflicted with their overriding duty not to take advantage of her vulnerability.

The contract they wrote down states that the plaintiff will hand over the title to her car to the defendant by September 15, and the defendant will pay the plaintiff $ 35,000 for the car by September 20.

[31]... I am of the view that the defendant / applicant has not shown that the public interest in preventing double compensation has taken precedence over the public interest in encouraging settlement such that I should order the production of the mediation brief, settlement letter, file memo, communication or similar document prepared by the plaintiff's previous solicitor... (Gamble v. Brown, 2015 BCSC 1873)

1/22/03, American Board of Trial Advocates / New York Bar Association Masters In Trial A Trial Demonstration in an SUV Roll - Over Case, New York, NY (Role of Plaintiff's Attorney - Cross Examination of Defendant)

The defendant vehemently resisted the plaintiff's attempt to access her mother's medical records, refusing to turn them over after the court ordered that they do so.

In 2008, another federal court harshly dismissed his claims for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act against two other creditors, noting that Flury had «filed eleven lawsuits against various defendants over the last four years, and with the exception of one case that ended in a default judgment, plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed every action once the defendant moved to dismiss the case or otherwise responded to the complaint.»

Madam Justice Dardi preferred the Plaintiff's evidence over the Defendant's finding the Defendant testified in «an evasive and less straightforward manner».

The benefit to this over the defamation and qualified privilege provisions in anti-SLAPP legislation, is that it removes the steps of filing the claim, the plaintiff proving defamation, and the defendant proving the defence of qualified privilege in court.

On September 15, the plaintiff hands over the title to her car — but when September 20 rolls around, the defendant is nowhere to be found.

Tom's litigation practice involves all aspects of intellectual property and Tom has litigated cases on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants in federal courts all over the country.

We excel at helping defendants and plaintiffs protect their interests in litigation over contracts, employment agreements, construction problems, real estate deals, and white - collar investigations and lawsuits.

The most significant factor in this case making the assessment of general damages suggested by the plaintiff more appropriate than that suggested by the defendant is the severity and chronicity of pain, which combines with Mr. Swieczko's increasing emotional struggle over the impairments to his family, marital and social relationships.

Taking over a Clayton Act Anti-Trust case from a large law firm who recommended my client pay $ 200,000 in damages evolving from «Unfair Competition», and getting a directed verdict after the Plaintiff failed to make his case, and then collecting $ 80,000 from the Plaintiff in settlement of the Defendant's Counter Claim.

For these matters, a Plaintiff can file the action in South Carolina even if there is no personal jurisdiction over the Defendant.

[85] It follows from Section 132 (1) and my findings above that the plaintiff entered the crosswalk with a «Walk» signal, that she had the right of way over all vehicles, including the defendant.

The court agreed with the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant in the case, which involved a plaintiff who was injured when a crane he had leased from the defendant allegedly malfunctioned and drove itself over his foot and leg.

Over his 19 years of practice, Frank has participated in well over 450 mandatory and private mediations as counsel for both defendants and plaintiffs, which has allowed him to develop and hone his negotiation skiOver his 19 years of practice, Frank has participated in well over 450 mandatory and private mediations as counsel for both defendants and plaintiffs, which has allowed him to develop and hone his negotiation skiover 450 mandatory and private mediations as counsel for both defendants and plaintiffs, which has allowed him to develop and hone his negotiation skills.

In all cases, the Ontario - based plaintiffs sought to have their claims tried in Ontario and in all cases the foreign defendants sought to stay the actions on the basis that Ontario courts did not have jurisdiction over the claims against them or, alternatively, on the basis that Ontario was not a convenient forum for those claims.

He says that there is no authority for what the plaintiff proposes, namely to call 11 of his 28 witnesses via videoconference, over an estimated 22 hours... It is the defendant's position that the cost of having the witnesses attend in Vernon for the trial pales in comparison to the multi?million dollar claim being advanced by the plaintiff.

For over a decade, he has represented plaintiffs and defendants in complex business and commercial cases, mass torts, and appellate matters.

Plaintiff brought suit against over 600 defendants for patent infringement.

The B.C.C.A. (in a decision written by Justice Groberman) dismissed the appeal, holding that territorial competence over the action between the plaintiffs and defendants was sufficient to establish territorial competence over the injunction application.