Sentences with phrase «than the plaintiff because»

A defendant in an existing case may file a third - party claim against someone other than the plaintiff because the outcome of the case between the plaintiff and the defendant will affect the rights or responsibilities of that third party.

Not exact matches

Rich Palma, president of Golden Pear Funding, said plaintiffs who take out advances receive better protection than borrowers may in other lending situations, because their own lawyers typically review, and often sign, advance agreements.

If both sides, through their eyes and their people's eyes, have concluded that the plaintiff is absolutely going to win this case, and the plaintiff is going to get a lot of money because they're totally on board with everything that has been presented, then that might be a good reason for the defendant to agree to a settlement with the plaintiff for less money than the potential exposure if the jury comes back and finds willful infringement.

«Because the proclamation is unlawful as applied to plaintiffs, and inflicts grave and irreversible harms on them, plaintiffs seek a declaration that the proclamation violates the Trade Act and the NAFTA Implementation Act and an injunction prohibiting its enforcements against plaintiffs,» they wrote in their more than 600 - page complaint.

Small claims court cases are much cheaper than superior court cases for both the plaintiff (the person doing the suing) and the defendant (the person being sued) because the parties are not allowed to have any attorneys represent them and other rules that simplify the lawsuit process, making the whole thing much cheaper, faster, and easier.

Judge Robert B. Freedman agreed with the plaintiffs in Valenzuela v. O'Connell that students who have failed the test — especially English - language learners — have not had a fair chance to learn the material because they were more likely than others to attend overcrowded schools and have unqualified teachers.

Because the plaintiffs have nothing more than the IP... [Read more...]

Like plaintiffs, thousands of other aspiring authors who signed up with PublishAmerica have become demoralized because the publishing contract appears to be little more than a pretext for selling dubious services... These authors also feel trapped because PublishAmerica owns the rights to their books for seven to ten years.

This past month, an Ohio district court ruled that several online self - publishing services were not liable for right of publicity or privacy claims for distributing an erotic (and so - called «less than tasteful») book whose cover contained an unauthorized copy of the plaintiffs» engagement photo because such services are not publishers.

The attorney for the plaintiff is incented to come up with the highest believable amount for the jury, because they will render a verdict less than that.

The lead attorney representing the plaintiffs argued that this rule does not apply in this case because «the exception to this policy is where the officer personally committed a tort: a wrongful act or an infringement of a right (other than under contract) leading to civil legal liability.»

The plaintiffs allege that because the plan sponsor imprudently and disloyally provided participants the much more expensive versions of the plan's same mutual fund options during these dates, plan participants lost more than $ 12 million of their retirement savings.

I urge you to buy the book, not so much because I need the money for my end of the case (which I do) but because when a sclerotic and dysfunctional judicial system co-operates with a cynical and fraudulent plaintiff in turning the DC courts into a 21st century version of trial by ordeal, it is more important than ever to push back by disseminating as widely as possible the opinions of him that Mann is trying to suppress.

«Rather than seeing the Avvo ratings for what they are — «that and $ 1.50 will get you a ride on Seattle's new South Lake Union Streetcar» — plaintiffs Browne and Wenokur want to make a federal case out of the number assigned to them because (a) it could harm their reputation, (b) it could cost them customers / fees, or (c) it could mislead the lawyer - hiring public into retaining poor lawyers or bypassing better lawyers.

The potential for a successful plaintiff to have to pay a substantial portion of their damages to the defendant because the amount awarded for damages at trial was less than an earlier offer is a legitimate concern.

But when someone offers a plaintiff a settlement it is only because they believe the amount will be less than the settlement awarded in the court.

Even though the contingency fee agreement was entered into in 1999, the former versions of section 6147 made no difference, because the Legislature in 1994 broadened its provisions to apply to a «client» rather than just a «plaintiff»;

The plaintiff must show that it is more likely than not that the birth injury occurred because of the doctor's acts or omissions during the birth of the child.

The Defendant argued that the statements did not meet the legal test of defamation because they were not «published» — i.e. they were not communicated to at least one person other than the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff, however, claimed that because the defendants» insurance company confirmed her cause of action in April or May of 2010 the limitation period ran from then rather than from the date of the accident (Limitations Act, s. 16).

First Capital's costs would violate the principle of proportionality because they'd amount to more than 50 per cent of the substantial indemnity costs of $ 709,000 incurred by the plaintiffs in defending all five summary judgment motions.

The basis on which the Court of Appeal in those cases concluded that the date of the advance was relevant to costs was because the plaintiff «had in hand more at the start of the action than the amount of the jury's verdict.»

success in defending the standard of care requires more effort than ever in the challenging economy since the 2007 - 2008 market collapse, because some former clients are hurting financially and can make sympathetic plaintiffs.

They differ from the general and specific damages, because rather than make the plaintiff whole, the punitive damages are put in place as a deterrent and warning to the defendant.

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 was favored by businesses likely to be defendants in future class action lawsuits (such as manufacturers), because state civil procedure law in some U.S. states such as California, is more favorable to class action plaintiffs than federal civil procedure laws related to class actions.

However, ICBC argued that, because the Plaintiff's childhood friend was also a regular client, the lunch appointment should be deemed to be «client development» rather than merely a social outing.

At another point, he pokes at the irony in plaintiff John Henry Browne's contention that his Avvo ranking of 5.5 must be inaccurate because he was designated a «Super Lawyer» by Washington Law & Politics magazine: «Why one should assume that the attorney rating system developed by Washington Law & Politics is any better than that used by Avvo is not specified, and the Court is not inclined to make such an assumption.»

The defendant argued that she was not at fault in the accident because the plaintiff was driving faster than the speed limit when the accident happened.

Apologies that merely expressed sympathy worked only inconsistently because many plaintiffs took them to be insincere, which sometimes caused more indignation on the plaintiff's part, rather than less.

Because their objective is to punish the defendant rather than compensate a plaintiff (whose just compensation will already have been assessed), punitive damages straddle the frontier between civil law (compensation) and criminal law (punishment).

This is an easier standard for plaintiffs to meet than negligence, because the manufacturer's duty to the consumer is assumed.

[26] In the present case, the trial judge held that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent because the plaintiff could have been struck by the defendant's vehicle if he had been a jogger, rollerblader or regular pedestrian rather than riding his bicycle.

This is because if the injured plaintiff gets a jury award for more than your insurance policy limits, you, personally, can be held responsible to pay that portion of the judgment.

Because the case is local and the plaintiff is local, the attorney will feel more obligated than an out of state, and out of touch attorney would.

Plaintiffs argued that evidence of failure to use a seat belt should be excluded because that conduct could not have caused the accident, and a plaintiff should not be required to anticipate negligent conduct by the defendant; the Court rejected that argument based largely on the language of the proportionate responsibility statute, which focuses on the various parties» roles in causing «the personal injury» or the «harm for which recovery of damages is sought,» rather than simply the occurrence that led to the injury.

I have no doubt that because she has suffered depression in the past, she was vulnerable to depression, but she is the thin - skulled plaintiff here rather than a crumbling skull plaintiff.

At trial, the defendant argued that the plaintiff did not follow her doctor's orders because she saw a chiropractor rater than a medical doctor.

Based on findings that the «severe or pervasive» standard «unduly narrows the reach of the law,» the NYCHRL requires a plaintiff claiming a hostile work environment to prove «that she has been treated less well than other employees because of her gender.»

That's because with aggravated damages, the victim is em - powered to seek or not seek such damages; Type II errors are more likely, since the victim - vindication model doesn't purport to restrict the plaintiff from either forbearing from seek - ing punitive damages or to settle at an amount lower than what is necessary to signal to the defendant to forbear from such misconduct in the future.

That is because the current lead plaintiff, affirmed just weeks ago on September 30, 2009, is none other than Raj Rajaratnam's Galleon Management.

Plaintiff's counsel preferred Athey material contribution because it seemed to be easier to use, successfully, than the but - for test.

There is no real concern that the insured will be personally liable for the claim because it is highly unlikely that the plaintiff will recover more than the policy limits.

However, the court dismissed the Plaintiffs» FHA allegations because the Plaintiffs had only alleged that the Neighbors» discriminatory conduct interfered with the enjoyment of their home, a lower level of discrimination than the court ruled was necessary for the Plaintiffs to allege.

The plaintiffs in the suit claimed that those estimates injured them as they tried to sell homes because Zillow gave their properties lower values than the asking price.