Not exact matches
(b) Proof that the
defendant - licensee, or his or her employee or agent, demanded, was shown, and acted in reliance
upon bona fide evidence in any transaction, employment, use, or permission forbidden by Section 25658, 25663, or 25665 shall be a defense to any criminal prosecution therefor or to any
proceedings for the suspension or revocation of any license based thereon.
Many solicitors assume that liability to pay the
Defendant's costs is only triggered
upon service of the
proceedings but this is not always correct.
The Court of Appeal ruled that in civil
proceedings, the burden of proving self - defence lay
upon the
defendant; and a
defendant who had mistakenly but honestly thought it was necessary to defend himself against an imminent risk of attack could not rely on self - defence if his mistaken belief had not been reasonable.
If, instead of bringing counterclaims in the original lawsuit, the
defendant brings a separate lawsuit against the plaintiff, the plaintiff could seek to either (1) consolidate the cases if they are filed in the same court system (i.e. a federal case and a federal case, or a New York State case and a New York State case), or (2) move to dismiss the new lawsuit because the claims were required to be brought in the original lawsuit as mandatory counterclaims, or (3) move to stay
proceedings in the second lawsuit pending resolution of the first lawsuit, or (4) move to dismiss the claims in the second lawsuit on the merits if it is apparent from the face of the countersuit that it does not state a claim
upon which relief can be granted or was filed in the wrong court.
This meant the
defendants in the second and third actions wanted to terminate the
proceedings based
upon limitation defences, said the ruling, and see the judge strike those actions.