Sentences with phrase «which plaintiffs and defendants»

In overturning the release rule, it sounds like the court basically adopted a Pierrenger release as the default, which plaintiffs and defendants often use to avoid the potential adverse effects of settling with one one of several defendants.

[15] Stated thus, the legal propositions for which the plaintiff and the defendants respectively contend, appear to be incompatible.

Not exact matches

Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank, and other financial institutions began tapping psychologists around 2007 to help high - net - worth broods navigate interpersonal dramas, which often wind up with plaintiffs and defendants bleeding money.

It is the first defendant to settle and agreed to help the plaintiffs with their case against the remaining defendants, which are American Airlines Group (aal), Delta Air Lines (dal) and United Continental Holdings (ual).

The Court announced that «[t] o prove loss causation, plaintiffs need only show a causal connection between the fraud and the loss by tracing the loss back to the very facts about which the defendant lied.»

Thus it was in the celebrated case of Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) in the law of tort, in which water from the defendant's reservoir had flooded the mines of the plaintiff and put them out of use.

To this end his favorite device is to picture a cosmic assize in which Yahweh is at once plaintiff and judge; he advances his arguments and introduces his witnesses and then challenges the defendants to make out their case.

The complaint lists four individual plaintiffs and names as defendants Trader Joe's, which sells some of the wines that were tested, and about two dozen California wineries, including some well - known names such as Beringer, Fetzer, and... Continue Reading

It appears from defendant's own statement, that the McIlhenny bottle and carton were used as a guide in the manufacture of his own, and the inference must follow that his intention then was to make it appear to the casual observer that his sauce and that of plaintiff were one and the same, and thus secure the advantage of the extensive advertisement and wide demand for plaintiff's product, which the stipulation shows is sold in every State of the Union and many foreign countries and is handled by a large maj ority of the jobbers in the United States.

Not only did defendant adopt the name and imitate the bottles and cartons in use by plaintiff, but at the very beginning, when he started the manufacture and sale of his sauce in competition with the long established business of plaintiff, he printed on his bottle labels a caution to use «only the genuine Evangeline,» thus apparently seeking to create the impression that such «Evangeline» Tabasco Sauce was an old and established brand, against spurious imitations of which the public should be warned.

Such of these other manufacturers, including defendant, whose use of the word «Tabasco» came to the knowledge of plaintiff and its predecessors, have been warned to the effect that they have no right to use the word in connection with the sauce, or to use similar packages, and quite a number of suits for infringement have been filed by plaintiff, most of which have been terminated by consent decrees.

Plaintiff states that on Thursday September 8, 2016, she participated in an Inter-Party Advisory Committee, IPAC, meeting called by the 1st Defendant together with other registered political parties in Ghana during which the parties were informed by the 1st Defendant that the filing fees for Presidential and Parliamentary Elections would be GHC50, 000.00 and GHC10, 000.00 respectively.

Plaintiff again states that in order to fully participate in this year's general elections, she must find and deposit with the 1st Defendant an amount of GHC2, 800,000.00 of which fees and or deposit of fees would be confiscated to the State should Plaintiff failed to secure at least 25 % of the presidential votes and 12.5 % votes in each constituency parliamentary votes in the general elections.

A copy of the suit, which is available to ClassFMonline.com said: «This honourable court will be moved by Gary Nimako Marfo ESQ., counsel for and on behalf of plaintiff / applicants herein praying for an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain defendants / respondents, whether by themselves, agents, servants, workmen, hirelings, privies or any person claiming under or through them or howsoever described, from holding out the second defendant / respondent, [as] the parliamentary candidate - elect for Klottey Korle constituency.»

And that «if payments have been made to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants under agreements other the two * dated 26th April 2006 *, which were terminated, issues relating to those payments would have to be determined in a forum other than this Court (Supreme Court) and in a different action, since they do not come within the issue of constitutional interpretation raised by the Plaintiff's writ&raquAnd that «if payments have been made to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants under agreements other the two * dated 26th April 2006 *, which were terminated, issues relating to those payments would have to be determined in a forum other than this Court (Supreme Court) and in a different action, since they do not come within the issue of constitutional interpretation raised by the Plaintiff's writ&raquand 3rd Defendants under agreements other the two * dated 26th April 2006 *, which were terminated, issues relating to those payments would have to be determined in a forum other than this Court (Supreme Court) and in a different action, since they do not come within the issue of constitutional interpretation raised by the Plaintiff's writ&raquand in a different action, since they do not come within the issue of constitutional interpretation raised by the Plaintiff's writ».

The court held that the Plaintiff has made more than sufficient references to the specific allegations, the dates and times were made plus the specific radio / media platforms on which the allegations were made by Defendants against the Plaintiff.

By article 46, the first defendant is endowed with independence in the performance of its functions including the initiation, regulation and conduct of elections in the country... In our opinion and as part of our function to declare what the law is, the above words which are unambiguous insulate the Electoral Commission from any external direction and or control in the performance of the functions conferred on it under article 45... A fair consideration of the functions of the first defendant reveals that the demand which was made on it by the plaintiffs regarding the presence of ineligible and deceased persons and the latter's refusal to acquiesce in the said demands which provoked the action herein relates to its mandate under article 45 (a) «to compile the register of voters and revise it at such periods as may be determined by law».

The Human Rights Division of the Superior court of Jurisdiction in High court of Justice Accra, preferred an out of court settlement, which was accepted by both the plaintiffs, Mr. Philip Ayamba and seven others and the Defendant, the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General's Department in respect of L.I 2146.

Her lawsuit states that Cater previously was a victim of domestic abuse and that Hoyt used Cater's vulnerability to «lure» her into a «predatory and unlawful game in which Defendant Hoyt sought to control every aspect of the plaintiff's life.»

The Bayelsa State governor wanted an order of interim injunction restraining the first defendant, whether by itself, servant, agents, privies or howsoever called from accepting from the second and third defendants any fresh submission of names of governorship aspirant from Bayelsa State, to change / substitute the name of the plaintiff which had already been submitted to the first defendant after the primary election of January 2011, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

In a suit filed Wednesday night, the plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the law is unconstitutional and an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the provisions by the attorney's general's office and the Joint Commission on Public Ethics, which are the defendants in the case.

Appeal from judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Mark D. Fox, Magistrate Judge), which held that defendant Board of Education of the Newburgh Enlarged City School District intentionally discriminated against plaintiff Santina Polera in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and awarded damages to plaintiff.

Specifically, and without limitation, Plaintiff will show that the private loans held by Defendant were not incurred «solely to pay qualified higher education expenses,» per 26 U.S.C. § 221 (d)(1), and were not «attributable to education furnished during a period during which the recipient was an eligible student,» as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 221 (d)(1)(C).

I think the «American System» overall would work better were U.S. Courts ---- Federal and State ---- more willing, and more able, to assess to plaintiffs the defendants» costs and expenses for bringing suits which are deemed to be frivolous.

The plaintiffs allege the defendants also intentionally selected higher - fee versions of proprietary actively - managed funds to increase fee revenue, at the expense of trust participants and beneficiaries, saying they were permitted to invest in different investment vehicles which contained identical investments, but varied significantly in terms of costs.

«we are not only talking about fraud and deception of inconceivable sums, but also a complex and extensive operation created by the defendants in order to hide behind straw companies, false and fictional names and identities, and all this in order to persuade the plaintiff to fall into a trap in which they buried her and which to her regret she fell into»

«Crytek has not been compensated for Defendants» unlicensed use of Crytek technology in the Squadron 42 game, and has been substantially harmed by being deprived of that compensation, which would ordinarily include a substantial up - front payment as well as a substantial royalty on game sales,» plaintiffs argue.

Order Defendants to prepare and implement an enforceable national remedial plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2 so as to stabilize the climate system and protect the vital resources on which Plaintiffs now and in the future will depend...

The National Petrochemical Plaintiffs argue that Defendants «gerrymandered the criteria to reach this outcome,» which establishes that the purpose and design of the LCFS is to discriminate against out - of - state and foreign HCICOs.

As Hardcastle notes, many of these cases are decided at the duty stage, and courts have been unwilling to find the requisite proximity between the plaintiffs and the defendant governments or hospitals which is necessary to base a duty of care.

[23] The Defendant has no legitimate interest in enquiring into the reasonability, legality or validity of [the plaintiff's] financial arrangements, its counsel's fee structure or the manner in which [the plaintiff] chooses to allocate the risks and potential returns of the litigation...»

His experience representing both defendants and plaintiffs in a broad range of litigated disputes has provided him with valuable insight which he uses in providing top quality representation to his clients.

Moreover, it treats both plaintiffs and defendants evenhandedly -» [n] o matter which side wins a case, the court must assess whether the other side's position was (un) reasonable.»

[37] Further, the plaintiff submits other sufficient reasons to commence action in Supreme Court were the insurer's denial of coverage because the forces were insufficient to cause injury; and because the plaintiff was allegedly a worker, which if proven and given the defendant was, would see the action statute barred pursuant to s. 10 (1) of the WCA.

Where the occasion is shown to be privileged, the bona fides of the defendant is presumed and the defendant is free to publish, with impunity, remarks which may be defamatory and untrue about the plaintiff.

Assume that Mr. Grutman's proposed test is as follows: «If the state long - arm statute is satisfied and defendant has engaged in purposeful conduct directed at the forum state out of which conduct the cause of action arises, and that conduct satisfies the minimum contacts under which substantial justice and fair play make it reasonable to hail defendant into court there, and the forum state has an interest in providing a forum to the plaintiff, then the forum has personal jurisdiction over the defendant for that cause of action.»

The case led to a nine - day trial, at which the defendant hospital denied that the plaintiff suffered from CRPS, and it claimed that if he did it was not a result of their negligence but instead caused by the procedures he later underwent to deal with his arm pain.

Counsel for the defendant referred to the manner of termination, which he argued was respectful: the plaintiff was questioned, an investigation was done, she argued, and he was suspended with pay.

The plaintiff took the position that the reasonable notice period was between 18 and 24 months; the defendant did not suggest a period or range of notice to which he says the plaintiff ought to be entitled.

Mercury has been served as a purported UM carrier and Plaintiff is seeking to hold Mercury liable to satisfy all or a portion of any judgment which might be rendered against Defendant in this matter.

Notwithstanding the fact that the other plaintiffs had acknowledged that they were jointly and severally liable for anything for which the Joint Venture might be liable, the court did not accept the defendant's submission that the Joint Venture itself ought to be removed as being unnecessary with Justice Griffin stating:

While I accept there was a situation of peril created by the driver of the tractor trailer, the proximate cause of the collision between the defendant's vehicle and that of the plaintiff was the inattention of the defendant by travelling too close to the rear of the plaintiff's vehicle or, alternatively, the condition of the brakes on his vehicle which did not allow him to slow his vehicle in time to avoid hitting the plaintiff's vehicle.

However, in this case the defense team was betting on the 50 % rule, which works like this: if the defense team could convince the jury that the plaintiff (my client, the injured motorcyclist) is more than 50 % at fault for the crash, the defendant (the negligent minivan driver) would not have to pay for non-economic damages, which include pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, scarring and disfigurement, and other long - term problems as a result of the crash.

The financial package including, signing bonus and benefits was attractive to the plaintiff and was part of the encouragement on the part of the defendant to have him accept the position which he was offered.

Thus, the one - and two - year statutes of limitations on Plaintiff's claims, which are based on Defendant's alleged failures to promote him, began to run in August 2009 when Defendant denied Plaintiff the promotion in the Madison, Wisconsin location.

If the defendant's unlawful act resulted in the foreseeable emergency braking by others, which caused the plaintiff to swerve out of control and crash, or the load to shift and spill, might such harms not be included within the scope of compensable negligence?

The plaintiff alleged that this constituted a latent defect in the property which the defendants knew about and concealed from the plaintiff.

You used an example of when a debtor moves to convert from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13, and a creditor files a complaint to oppose it, the judge decides the case by «finding for the plaintiff,» which really means the conversion was denied because the plaintiff is the creditor and the defendant is the debtor.

The pain and suffering was caused by the defendant, Sony, banning the plaintiff's account on the PlayStation 3 Network, in which the plaintiff relies on to socialize with other people, since it's the only way the plaintiff can truly socialize since he also suffers from Agoraphobia.

[27] The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conspired in Canada and throughout the world to fix prices of Airfreight Shipping Services, which is defined to mean airfreight cargo shipping services for shipments to or from Canada (excluding shipments to and from the United States).