Sentences with phrase «returned verdicts in favor»

The jury, in 45 minutes, returned verdicts in favor of Realty Consultants on all remaining counts.

RESULT: After a jury returned verdicts in favor of the motorist, BHPK appealed on behalf of the police.

The court returned a verdict in favor of the developers.

If the jurors rated similarly situated attorneys equally, as one might expect, the lines on the graphs would appear as a perfect «X.» One would expect the defense attorneys to be rated significantly higher than the plaintiff attorneys when the juries return a verdict in favor of the defendant on all counts and the plaintiff attorneys to be rated significantly higher than the defense attorneys when the juries return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on all counts.

After a jury returned a verdict in favor of the DOT, a New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict.

Otis filed a claim against Cusick, the case was tried, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Otis for $ 4 million.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and awarded him damages for past and future medical expenses, but not for past or future pain and suffering.

After a seven - day trial in which eight physicians testified, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants after deliberating for less than an hour.

After a two and a half month trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Computers Plus and awarded it damages for the full value of its business.

The jury deliberated for almost eight hours before returning a verdict in favor of the defendants.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the township.

The jury returned a verdict in her favor.

After a ten - day jury trial, a Cook County jury returned a verdict in favor of the family.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff clients and a judgment in the clients» favor was entered (Wharton County, Texas).

The jury deliberated for five hours before returning a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

After a trial lasting for five days, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

The jury deliberated for 2 1/2 hours before returning a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

The jury returned its verdict in favor of the man on Jan. 11, after a five - day trial.

The plaintiffs» product liability and negligence claims went to trial, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.

After phase I the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $ 200,000.

After a jury returned a verdict in favor of the doctor in a medical malpractice case, an estate executor appealed on two questions of abuse of discretion: limitations on the scope of questions during the defendant's deposition, and refusal of jury instructions tendered by the plaintiff.

The case was tried reverse bifurcated and after phase I the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defense, finding that the decedent's mesothelioma was not caused by his asbestos exposure.

However, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defense, based on the plaintiff's inability to establish that her damages were a result of the accident.

However, once the jury returns a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the award amount that the jury reaches can be subject to a judge's review under certain circumstances.

The jury deliberated for a few hours and returned a verdict in favor of the injured patient for a total of $ 650,000 in monetary damages, with interest set at 6 percent starting from the date of the injury in 2010.

He sues you, and the jury returns a verdict in his favor with a multi-million-dollar award.

A jury returned a verdict in favor of the Hellers on all allegations, and Marozzi and the brokerage filed a motion with the court asking the judge to set aside the verdict.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Brokerage and the Seller.

A jury returned a verdict in favor of the Buyers on all allegations, and the Salesperson and Brokerage filed a motion with the court asking the judge to set aside the verdict.

Not exact matches

The Manhattan federal court jury returned the verdict after a three - week trial in which prosecutors claimed that the 71 - year - old Democrat repeatedly promised the favors to enrich himself.

The data was further analyzed based on three jury outcomes: (1) whether the jury returned a verdict that was entirely in favor of the state / plaintiff on all counts, (2) in favor of the defendant on all counts, or (3) there was a split decision.

The scores given denote the percentage change in scores for both sides from when the verdict was returned entirely in their favor to when the verdict was returned entirely in favor of the other party.

For example, on a scale of 1 = Excellent and 5 = Very Poor, jurors gave defense attorneys, on average, a competence score of 1.68 when they returned a verdict that was completely in favor of the defendant, 1.95 when they returned a split verdict, and 2.23 when they returned a verdict that was all in favor of the state / plaintiff.

However, even in the categories where jurors come close to rating both sides equally, the plaintiff attorneys are still not rated as low as the defense attorneys when the verdict is not returned in their favor and they are rated significantly higher than the defense attorneys when the verdict is returned in their favor.

The results of the survey generally follow a pattern that you might expect — when jurors return a verdict in the attorney's favor, they tend to view evidence presentation, courtroom demeanor, sincerity, competence, and preparedness of the attorney in a more favorable light.

After deliberation, the jury returned a general verdict in the defendant's favor, finding that the defendant was not liable for any of the plaintiff's injuries.

The respondents in Tyson Foods were certified as a class, and a verdict was returned in their favor at trial.

There's something romantic about a jury returning a big verdict in your favor.

The jury returned the unanimous verdict in favor of the client, assessing damages for medical care and expenses, loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and permanent injury.

In 2005, a Connecticut jury returned a $ 27 million verdict against a charter airline company in favor of a mother for negligently failing to maintain adequate safeguards agsinst abductions when it accepted $ 160,000 to fly a father and his three children to Egypt and then to CubIn 2005, a Connecticut jury returned a $ 27 million verdict against a charter airline company in favor of a mother for negligently failing to maintain adequate safeguards agsinst abductions when it accepted $ 160,000 to fly a father and his three children to Egypt and then to Cubin favor of a mother for negligently failing to maintain adequate safeguards agsinst abductions when it accepted $ 160,000 to fly a father and his three children to Egypt and then to Cuba.

After deliberating for about seven hours, the jury returned an unanimous verdict in favor of Lincoln.

A court of appeals in California recently released an opinion in a personal injury lawsuit that reversed a jury verdict in favor of a plaintiff who sustained injuries when he was struck by a vehicle being driven by an employee of the defendant as he returned from work.

The jury returned a verdict of $ 750,000 in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the plaintiffs» daughter was partially at fault.

The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the manufacturer.

A California jury returned an 11 - 1 defense verdict in favor of Nissan North America, Inc. in the case Steiner v. Nissan.