Search for: "Plaintiff(s)"
Results 2341 - 2360
of 178,370
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Aug 2021, 11:33 am
Finally, the court denied the plaintiff’s request that he was due $4,000 in statutory damages under California’s Unruh Act for each of his visits to defendant’s website. [read post]
23 Feb 2023, 4:00 am
LADSS was successful in securing a dismissal of Allen’s lawsuit. [read post]
2 Aug 2017, 6:48 am
On review, the transit authority alleged that the trial court improperly held it liable for the plaintiff’s damages and that it held the transit authority to the same legal standard of care as a common carrier. [read post]
3 Jun 2011, 5:19 pm
The employer’s theory was that “plaintiffs’ counsel presented a claim on behalf of certain plaintiffs–busboys and waiters (i.e., ‘correctly tipped employees’)–where, if they prevail, will expose other plaintiffs–’polishers’ and ‘managers’ (i.e., ‘incorrectly tipped employees’)–to liability. [read post]
30 Aug 2011, 7:17 am
" "96% of plaintiff’s overall sales were from the patented device thus making it an extremely valuable component of plaintiff’s business. . . . [read post]
8 May 2020, 10:19 am
” The district manager heard from one of plaintiff’s subordinates that he had been disciplined by plaintiff for work performance issues and sought a transfer. [read post]
19 Dec 2012, 4:15 pm
Plaintiff’s reports are insufficient to show whether plaintiff sustained serious injury under the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of New York State Insurance Law § 5102(d). [read post]
9 Apr 2010, 7:45 am
Plaintiff's motion to disqualify defendant's expert who was the inventor of the patent-in-suit was denied. [read post]
3 May 2017, 4:35 am
Woman Injured by Discus at School Track Meet Obtains $350,000 Settlement An 83-year-old woman and her husband were attending a high school track meet when the woman was hit by a student’s discus. [read post]
15 Feb 2013, 8:00 am
Cordray’s appointment unconstitutional. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 10:00 pm
Clark III granted the plaintiff’s protective order to prevent the defendant from proceeding with a new deposition to review whether the plaintiff had used “appropriate search tools for ESI discovery,” after the requested discovery documents had already been produced. [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 8:59 pm
The court rejected the plaintiff's attempt to add a claim for punitive damages, noting that a bald allegation that American General's conduct was "sufficiently egregious" to warrant such damages did not satisfy the requirement, under applicable New York law, that the conduct must be "reaching towards criminal indifference. [read post]
31 Jan 2014, 7:00 am
The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, determining that Plaintiff’s remedy was found in the Defense Base Act “DBA,” and not in a tort suit. [read post]
5 Feb 2018, 4:20 am
The court also held that adjudicating plaintiff's claims will not necessarily involve examination of church doctrine or internal church governance. [read post]
14 Sep 2020, 3:40 pm
The court disagreed with the defendant’s approach, characterizing it as an invitation to the jury to speculate that the plaintiff was impaired at the time of the accident because he had been drinking the day before. [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 12:22 pm
On remand, the court must now apply the rigorous analysis required by Dukes in determining whether plaintiffs have met their burden of proving that Rule 23’s requirements are satisfied and that a class may be certified. [read post]
5 Sep 2007, 4:03 pm
The Court of Appeal held that there is only one plaintiff, at least for the purposes of a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 settlement offer.Husband and wife John and Gloria Peterson sued John Crane, Inc. alleging that John's asbestosis and lung cancer were asbestos-related. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 3:02 pm
What made this opinion interesting was plaintiff's counsel's assertion that because Medicare had not asserted a lien against the suit, that it was not going to therefore there was no Medicare reimbursement obligation. [read post]
1 Jan 2014, 10:20 am
Of course, being a privacy case, it’s a tough case from the defense side to argue that regardless of what the statute said plaintiff’s are not entitled to recovery. [read post]
15 Oct 2015, 12:12 pm
I don't read this decision to impede discovery from employees of a plaintiff's competitor. [read post]
