Sentences with phrase «summary judgment in court»

He has successfully litigated and obtained a complete defense award in a multi-plaintiff arbitration, obtained summary judgment in court, as well as favorably resolved cases involving allegations of harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination.

Not exact matches

Ebert argued the earlier agreements were invalid because they amounted to restraint of trade but Superior Court Justice Frederick Myers granted summary judgment in favour of Mars Canada in November 2016.

An Ontario Court of Appeal justice has warned against «summary judgment at all costs» in her dissent of a ruling on the application of the doctrine of emergency in a personal injury case.

«Because there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Sulyma had actual knowledge of the facts comprising claims I and III, as well as knowledge of the disclosures he alleges were unlawfully inadequate in claims II and IV, the Court grants defendants» motion for summary judgment on those claims, finding them time - barred,» Cousins wrote in his opinion.

The High Court concluded that «in civil penalty proceedings, courts are not precluded from considering and, if appropriate, imposing penalties that are agreed between the parties» (quote taken from judgment summary).

In June»98 a U.S. District Court in Maryland threw out the suit in summary judgment, ordering Antonious to pay Spalding's court costs and issuing a $ 30,000 sanction against Stroup's law firm, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, for failing to do an adequate prefiling investigation of Antonious's claimIn June»98 a U.S. District Court in Maryland threw out the suit in summary judgment, ordering Antonious to pay Spalding's court costs and issuing a $ 30,000 sanction against Stroup's law firm, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, for failing to do an adequate prefiling investigation of Antonious's clCourt in Maryland threw out the suit in summary judgment, ordering Antonious to pay Spalding's court costs and issuing a $ 30,000 sanction against Stroup's law firm, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, for failing to do an adequate prefiling investigation of Antonious's claimin Maryland threw out the suit in summary judgment, ordering Antonious to pay Spalding's court costs and issuing a $ 30,000 sanction against Stroup's law firm, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, for failing to do an adequate prefiling investigation of Antonious's claimin summary judgment, ordering Antonious to pay Spalding's court costs and issuing a $ 30,000 sanction against Stroup's law firm, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, for failing to do an adequate prefiling investigation of Antonious's clcourt costs and issuing a $ 30,000 sanction against Stroup's law firm, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, for failing to do an adequate prefiling investigation of Antonious's claims.

Judge Elaine Slobod, of Orange County Supreme Court in upstate New York, granted partial summary judgment March 12 for Wah - chung Hsu, who once lived in the hamlet of Highland Mills, saying in court documents that Wyckoff was in breach of contract when it did not pay him severance after firingCourt in upstate New York, granted partial summary judgment March 12 for Wah - chung Hsu, who once lived in the hamlet of Highland Mills, saying in court documents that Wyckoff was in breach of contract when it did not pay him severance after firingcourt documents that Wyckoff was in breach of contract when it did not pay him severance after firing him.

In one case, Denenberg allegedly prepared a «fake order» in which the court granted his client a motion for summary judgment, dismissing a claim against it with prejudice, the suit saiIn one case, Denenberg allegedly prepared a «fake order» in which the court granted his client a motion for summary judgment, dismissing a claim against it with prejudice, the suit saiin which the court granted his client a motion for summary judgment, dismissing a claim against it with prejudice, the suit said.

«The state Supreme Court had already granted our request for summary judgment determining that Trump and his University are liable for operating illegally in New York as an unlicensed educational institution.»

Botwin said the town will soon file a motion in State Supreme Court for summary judgment after discovering charges for ineligible FIT students.

Justice lawyers also filed their own 54 - page motion for summary judgment asking the court to rule in their favor.

In the Seattle case, the District Court granted the school district summary judgment, finding, inter alia, that its plan survived strict scrutiny on the federal constitutional claim because it was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.

Judge Norman Black of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, in a summary judgment, ruled that student - initiated religious - study meetings prohibited by two schools in the Spring Branch Independent School District are, in fact, permissible under the Equal Access Act, according to Maurice Amidei, counsel for the...

The case — Houston Federation of Teachers et al. v. Houston ISD — was filed in 2014 and just yesterday, United States Magistrate Judge Stephen Wm. Smith denied in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, the district's request for summary judgment given the plaintiffs» due process claims.

Defendants have claimed that they are going to file a motion for summary judgment right about... now - ish in court terms.

If the other party files for a judgment with the court, and you didn't appear and mount a defense, a summary judgment would have been entered in favor of vendor.

Experian sued LifeLock and two weeks ago won a summary judgment in federal court.

After expedited discovery, the court granted the issuer's motion for summary judgment in all respects, permitting the bond issuance to proceed.

Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Microsoft Corporation, Electronic Arts Inc., Harmonix Music Systems, Inc., Majesco Entertainment Co., Ubisoft Inc., and Nintendo of America Inc.'s (collectively «Defendants») on Plaintiff Richard J. Baker's («Baker») claims for infringement pursuant to the Court's ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS» MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (D.I. 135) dated January 3, 2017 and filed on January 4, 2017.

Causing heartburn for project applicants developing on tribal land, the Tenth Circuit reversed the District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma's grant of summary judgment and determined that the defendants» large - scale excavation project, involving site modification and the use of excavated rock and soil in the installation of wind turbines, constituted «mining» under federal regulations addressing mineral development on Native... Complete story»

With no billable hours to measure, no depositions to observe, no summary judgment motion results to track, and no trial results to either celebrate or anguish over (and I know, the better lawyer often loses in court), pretty much all the evaluations are «soft» ones.

We conclude that neither that crime nor any similar one was foreseeable, and thus affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

Thus the strike out provision of FPR 2010, r 4.4 (1) under which the case had proceeded in the Court of Appeal has to be construed without reference to «real prospects of success» test (as required for civil proceedings under CPR 1998 r 24.2); and FPR 2010 Practice Direction PD4A para 2.4 is «an unhelpful curiosity [in the absence of] a power in FPR 2010 to give summary judgment».

Perhaps, at least in summary judgment matters, this is a response to the comments of the Manitoba Court of Appeal in Hyczkewycz v Hupe, 2016 MBCA 23 in para. 5.

Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Timothy C. Batten Sr., ruling on Fastcase's motion for summary judgment, denied the motion and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, meaning that Fastcase is not barred from refiling the lawsuit in another court.

On January 23, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in the case of Hryniak v. Mauldin, in which it signaled a fundamental shift in the way that summary judgment motions are to be handled in the Province of Ontario.

Perhaps, at least in summary judgment matters, this is a response to the comments of the Manitoba Court of Appeal in Hyczkewycz v Hupe, 2016... [more]

Summary judgment was granted; that decision was overturned on appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal; the franchisee then sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which was refused in 2010.

If I do not already have a form — say, for a summary judgment memorandum in state court — I will start to create it.

In 2009 the Federal Courts Rules were amended to expand the availability of summary judgment and summary trial options.

Thus, regarding the claim for negligent breach of fiduciary duty, the Superior Court grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants was reversed.

After a series of lower court decisions resulted in conflicting conclusions, the Appeals Court vacated a Superior Court judgment allowing the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of the three - year limitation period of G.L. c. 84, court decisions resulted in conflicting conclusions, the Appeals Court vacated a Superior Court judgment allowing the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of the three - year limitation period of G.L. c. 84, Court vacated a Superior Court judgment allowing the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of the three - year limitation period of G.L. c. 84, Court judgment allowing the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of the three - year limitation period of G.L. c. 84, § 15.

The Court held that the revelation of character cases can be roughly divided into three categories: i) where misconduct is extremely serious, sometimes bordering on criminal acts (e.g. theft or fraud), just cause for termination will usually exist; ii) where conduct reveals deceit, misrepresentation or misleading of employers, cause will likely be found; and iii) where there are errors in judgment or a failure to follow rules, it can not automatically be said that the employee was dishonest for the purposes of justifying summary dismissal.

In addition, the Court confirmed that a bonus entitlement claim can be decided on a summary judgment motion.

Won summary judgment and successfully represented Fortune 500 client in meal and rest break class action litigated to the California Supreme Court.

They also argued that the Court was in a position to give summary judgment against the Claimants based on witness evidence from officials in the UK companies who said that their companies had not been involved in any cartel behaviour.

Our attorneys have also recently obtained summary judgment for multiple clients in municipal law and premises liability cases, and the Fourth District Appellate Court recently upheld summary judgment for an insurance company client.

The trial court subsequently entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.

In this role Carrie also coordinates and drafts summary judgment motions and motions in limine in state and federal court in multiple jurisdictions, and develops and prepares the trial and deposition testimony of expert witnesses and corporate representativeIn this role Carrie also coordinates and drafts summary judgment motions and motions in limine in state and federal court in multiple jurisdictions, and develops and prepares the trial and deposition testimony of expert witnesses and corporate representativein limine in state and federal court in multiple jurisdictions, and develops and prepares the trial and deposition testimony of expert witnesses and corporate representativein state and federal court in multiple jurisdictions, and develops and prepares the trial and deposition testimony of expert witnesses and corporate representativein multiple jurisdictions, and develops and prepares the trial and deposition testimony of expert witnesses and corporate representatives.

The Divisional Court found the Motion Judge was correct in dealing with the matter by way of summary judgment because the facts were not in dispute.

The court of appeals reversed summary judgment for defendant, holding that 1) the district court erred in its analysis of whether a witness's statement was made in reaction to a truly startling event, and whether the statement was made under the stress of excitement caused by that event; and 2) there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant's failure to remove the stump was a proximate cause of plaintiff's accident.

The Superior Court allowed defendants» motion for summary judgment concluding that they owed no duty of care to Robert, an intoxicated party guest who injured himself, and that a claim for negligent misrepresentation is one that arises only in a business context, not a social setting.

Obtaining summary judgment in (and complete dismissal of) a state wage and hour class action filed in Orange County Superior Court by hourly drivers against a respiratory care company and involving statutory and contractual overtime claims;

Another example is a motion for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule in the requester's favor because essential facts are no longer in dispute (perhaps because of what has been learned in discovery), making a jury's decision unnecessary on some — or all — points.

[77] In summary, the Chinese Court had jurisdiction over the matter which is the subject of the foreign judgment, the foreign judgment is final and conclusive, and there is no valid defence.

She has been recognized by the Court for her success in winning a prisoner civil rights jury trial, and has secured favorable summary judgment decisions in multiple cases.

A recent Supreme Court decision tackled two issues that have proven complex in Nova Scotia law: summary judgment and limitation periods.

The U.S. District Court of Massachusetts has affirmed a lower Court's summary judgment ruling that Fox News Network, LLC («Fox»), and «Fox and Friends» television personalities, Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade, did not defame the Superintendent of the Lewiston, Maine public schools during a morning show, which ran in April, 2007.

In the absence of expert testimony, there was no triable issue of material fact as to whether a defect in the speed control deactivation switch installed on a pickup truck was the proximate cause of a fire that damaged a brake shop, a federal court in Mississippi ruled, granting the pickup truck maker's motions for summary judgment on the business owner's products liability and negligence claims (the latter of which was subsumed by the products liability claim), and on the punitive damages claim (Mildemont, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., January 13, 2017, Ozerden, H.In the absence of expert testimony, there was no triable issue of material fact as to whether a defect in the speed control deactivation switch installed on a pickup truck was the proximate cause of a fire that damaged a brake shop, a federal court in Mississippi ruled, granting the pickup truck maker's motions for summary judgment on the business owner's products liability and negligence claims (the latter of which was subsumed by the products liability claim), and on the punitive damages claim (Mildemont, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., January 13, 2017, Ozerden, H.in the speed control deactivation switch installed on a pickup truck was the proximate cause of a fire that damaged a brake shop, a federal court in Mississippi ruled, granting the pickup truck maker's motions for summary judgment on the business owner's products liability and negligence claims (the latter of which was subsumed by the products liability claim), and on the punitive damages claim (Mildemont, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., January 13, 2017, Ozerden, H.in Mississippi ruled, granting the pickup truck maker's motions for summary judgment on the business owner's products liability and negligence claims (the latter of which was subsumed by the products liability claim), and on the punitive damages claim (Mildemont, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., January 13, 2017, Ozerden, H.).

The Court of Appeal held that Warkentin, J., in granting summary judgment to the second lawyer, erred in failing to consider whether he had owed the plaintiffs a duty to advise them about the limitation period for suing the first lawyer, even though the written retainer between the plaintiffs and the second lawyer was restricted to an assessment of the first lawyer's account.