Sentences with phrase «testimony of the plaintiff»

While the district withdrew as a defendant in the case before the trial started, she was called by the defense in an effort to impeach the testimony of a plaintiffs» witness, Nicholas Melvoin, a former LA Unified teacher at Markham Middle School in Watts, who had testified last month that teacher layoffs in 2009 resulted in effective teachers being dismissed and morale at the school eroded.

A physician who opines that a plaintiff is able to return to work can be challenged with a number of facts in evidence — records of treating physicians, employment documentation, and the testimony of the plaintiff's closest family and friends.

From the testimony of the plaintiff, it appears that the motor impairment has resolved over time.

If a case proceeds past the settlement stage and a lawsuit is necessary, in addition to these types of documents, testimony of the plaintiff, defendant and other interested parties will likely be required.

After years - long discovery in a defense of a False Claims Act action brought against a large healthcare company, including personally taking and defending more than twenty depositions of fact and expert witnesses, successfully excluded testimony of plaintiff / relator's experts and obtained complete summary judgment on all False Claims Act claims.

Justice Kane further stated that the evidence was corroborated by the testimony of the plaintiff's husband and two friends as to her condition since the accident.

In response, the defendant presented its own expert witness to counter the testimony of the plaintiff's experts.

Upon learning that Freeman intended to disclose an additional or new medical expert witness to offer opinions on the issue of causation, Dr. Crays» lawyers moved to adopt the rulings from the earlier case and bar any testimony of plaintiff's newly disclosed expert opinion pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219 (e).

While two of the trial judges, after the lawsuits were filed, disallowed the testimony of the plaintiff's medical «experts?

The only evidence in the record is the deposition testimony of Plaintiff Mary Diggs and her companion at Wal - Mart on the day in question.

Not exact matches

With extensive expert testimony, the plaintiffs made the case that secular humanism functions in many respects for its adherents as a religion (with ministers, fellowship, ceremonies marking the milestones of life, and a missionary program), and that it has many of the substantive characteristics of a religion as well, including a coherent interpretation of all of reality.

The finding of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that the registration by plaintiff's predecessor of the trade - mark had been fraudulently obtained, was based on the fact that in the application for registration, it was stated that applicant's use of the name «Tabasco» had been exclusive, whereas the testimony showed that several other manufacturers, during the preceding ten years, had, to its knowledge, used the word in connection with pepper sauce.

Jurors listened to concluding statements made by both plaintiffs and defendants on Tuesday, June 14, marking the final stage of the two - month - long manslaughter trial on the deaths of two firefighters in a 2007 blaze at the former Deutsche Bank tower at 130 Liberty St.. The summations came after final testimonies made on Mon., June 7, -LSB-...]

Adding to the testimony of these government officials, Plaintiffs also presented exhibits indicating that voter impersonation fraud is not a problem in Missouri.

The lawsuit is based on the plaintiffs» experiences, plus testimony from former employees and researchers who have «pulled tremendous amounts of «proof» right off the site,» Mr. Norton said.

To reenact the dialogue, the plaintiffs simply read the scripts of their testimonies as the stark documents conveying intense court dialogue fill the screen, a trope that serves some immediacy back to the audience.

As defendants, the state and its two biggest teachers unions tried to persuade the judge that in four weeks of testimony, the plaintiffs — nine students — did not present enough evidence to prove that the five contested statutes governing teacher dismissal, tenure and layoffs deny students right to an effective education.

In an effort to undercut Berliner's testimony, plaintiffs» lawyer Josh Lipshutz asked whether regardless of in - school or out - of - school factors, ineffective teachers can have an adverse impact on teachers, and Berliner said, «Of course.&raquof in - school or out - of - school factors, ineffective teachers can have an adverse impact on teachers, and Berliner said, «Of course.&raquof - school factors, ineffective teachers can have an adverse impact on teachers, and Berliner said, «Of course.&raquOf course.»

Plaintiffs called their final witnesses in Vergara v California today, putting on the stand two experts who offered testimony designed to show negative consequences of the state statutes under challenge.

As defendants, the state and its two biggest teachers unions tried to persuade the judge that in four weeks of testimony, the plaintiffs...

On cross examination, plaintiffs» attorney Marcellus McRae tried to chip away at the heft of Fraisse's testimony by having the witness concede that the districts he led were relatively small with few schools and had student populations that were largely white, with much smaller percentages of blacks and African Americans.

But Milazzo wrote, «It is obvious to this Court that there was no mutual intent of the parties to guarantee plaintiffs funding,» calling the testimony «unequivocal.»

During a relatively uneventful morning session, she offered testimony attempting to undermine many of the plaintiffs» key points, including the contention that school administrators don't have enough time to identify ineffective teachers.

A Harvard professor of education and economics provided the Vergara plaintiffs powerful testimony today when he told the court that schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District have ineffective teachers and a disproportionate number of them are assigned to minority and low income students.

The plaintiffs ultimately used Smith's testimony to argue that the inspector had left large areas uninspected and had effectively «admitted negligence» with regards to the structural problems and the evidence of water intrusion and damage.

The plaintiff, who has the burden of proof in any case, will then put on his case by presenting the sworn testimony of witnesses.

The case presented the court with the opportunity to discuss whether the plaintiff's late - filed notice of expert testimony should be admitted, and if not, whether the plaintiff's claim must fail as a result.

The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit and offered the expert testimony of a doctor to define the relevant standard of care broadly accepted within the medical community.

The attorneys make their statements separately (typically plaintiff first, then defendant), emphasizing certain evidence and testimony, and providing a summary of their argument to persuade the jury of the strength of their case.

As a result of this ruling, the plaintiff's claim will be permitted to proceed toward a trial, although the defense will have the opportunity to bolster their expert testimony with the results of the physical examination.

The plaintiffs presented expert testimony that the defendant obstetrician failed to recognize that gestational diabetes and the large size of the baby required a planned cesarean section to avoid this known complication associated with large babies.

The physicians» testimony varied, but none of the physicians was able to definitely state that the plaintiff's injuries were a result of the accident.

GJEL helped to demonstrate through written reports and deposition testimony, the extent of the closed head injury and the effects on the plaintiff's cognitive abilities.

We provide high quality scientifically based expert accident reconstruction, collision analyses and expert witness testimony to the litigation community on behalf of plaintiff and defendant litigants throughout California and the United States.

The judge noted that the content of the recordings had been the subject of the witness's testimony so the plaintiff was not deprived of the opportunity to put that aspect of his case before the court.

The judge acted on the basis of testimony from friends and family who reported that the previously funny and energetic plaintiff had become sullen and prone to mood swings since the accident.

Unfortunately, the Court goes into very little detail about the size of the reasonable royalty claimed by plaintiff's expert Raymond Sims, whose royalty testimony the Court precluded.

After precluding certain testimony by Plaintiff's damages expert in January, the court now rules against the remainder of his damages opinion of $ 150 to $ 300 million «or more.»

Despite significant medical testimony in support of plaintiff's case and in spite of enormous emotional impact of the death of a young woman who left a widower and a young son, Kevin obtained a defendant's verdict and then was able to protect the verdict at the Appellate and Supreme Court level.

In Salvas v. Wal - Mart Stores, the SJC ruled that a trial court judge erred when he decertified the class action, excluded testimony from the plaintiffs» expert witness, and granted partial summary judgment in favor of Wal - Mart.

Today, the Supreme Court decided to let lower courts decide the admissibility of testimony by employees other than the plaintiff regarding workplace discrimination, also known as «me too» evidence, in discrimination cases.

After hearing compelling testimony from Defendants» expert in accident reconstruction and the investigating police officer, the jury found that Plaintiff's own contributory negligence was a cause of the accident, resulting in a defense verdict.

At trial plaintiff's counsel attempted to impeach a defense expert with his history of payment from a medical malpractice insurer, by whom he had been paid on several occasions for testimony or opinions.

This almost always requires the testimony of a medical doctor, an «expert» hired by the plaintiff to prove his or her case.

Although these points seem very straightforward, toxic tort claims can, in fact, be very difficult and costly to prove for the plaintiffs because of the research and expert testimony required.

Both the plaintiff and the insurance company presented evidence supporting their respective side in the form of expert witness testimony.

Thus, the plaintiff's defamation and related claims arising out of that conduct and testimony were barred.

The appellate court ruled that plaintiffs were attempting to sidestep the requirement for expert testimony by drawing a false distinction between «symptoms of discomfort» and «symptoms of disease.»

At trial, both the plaintiff and the defendant will have an opportunity to present the testimony of witnesses and any evidence they believe help prove their claims.

Ultimately, the appellate court determined that the trial court properly admitted the plaintiff's expert witness testimony yet was within its right to assign the evidence little weight and find in favor of the defendant.