Search for: "Liable Defendant(s)"
Results 2481 - 2500
of 21,105
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Dec 2016, 8:27 am
” The Salman decision walks back some of the significant advantages that the Second Circuit’s Newman opinion conferred on insider trading defendants. [read post]
26 Jul 2016, 4:45 am
Violations of Sections 5 of the Securities Act and 15.A of the Exchange Act are strict liability offenses; the defendant’s state of mind is not a consideration. [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 1:55 pm
That said, to say that the defendant is not (or should not be held) immune does not mean that the defendant is liable. [read post]
21 Apr 2012, 8:00 am
For this reason the hirer is not vicariously liable for injuries due to the contractor's negligence. [read post]
26 May 2015, 11:38 am
In other words, even if the defendant reads the patent’s claims differently from the plaintiff, and that reading is reasonable, he would still be liable because he knew the acts might infringe. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 5:00 am
In so ruling, the court noted that the only party in this case was the Defendant and that, as such, the party Defendant could not be vicariously liable for its own conduct. [read post]
10 Dec 2020, 5:30 am
It was indicated that the Co-Defendant’s specifications called for the table to be anchored to the floor. [read post]
22 Feb 2016, 1:34 pm
The jury held that Ford was not liable to the plaintiffs for their injuries. [read post]
17 Aug 2015, 3:06 am
Governments and businesses know – or at least they should – that there’s a difference between being vicariously liable and being directly negligent. [read post]
17 Aug 2015, 3:06 am
Governments and businesses know – or at least they should – that there’s a difference between being vicariously liable and being directly negligent. [read post]
5 Apr 2010, 4:22 am
Jon Newton, the defendant, owns and operates the p2pnet website. [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 2:39 pm
§ 230, which generally immunizes Internet content providers from being held liable for posts by other service providers. [read post]
8 Oct 2007, 1:30 pm
The elements of this cause of action are 1) The existence of contract to which plaintiff is a party; 2) Defendant's knowledge of the contract; 3) Defendant's intentional procurement of the contract's breach; 4) The absence of justification or privilege; and 5) Plaintiff suffered damages resulting from the breach.Tortious interference with a contract is virtually identical to the elements of a claim for tortious interference with a business… [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 1:12 pm
The plaintiffs then reinstated their action against the company’s CEO, who was also a named defendant in the complaint. [read post]
16 Jun 2008, 3:40 pm
Under Pennsylvania state court rules, a plaintiff suing a defendant for professional liability has to file a certificate, as to every claim asserted, confirming that the plaintiff obtained a written statement from a professional in the same profession as the defendant stating that the defendant’s actions fell below the applicable standard of care. [read post]
9 Sep 2010, 10:33 am
Expanding on last week’s blog, Did You Know That An IME Provider Can Be Liable To The Insured, I want to show how an insurer’s use of a medical provider to conduct an independent medical examination can serve as evidence of bad faith against the insurer.Hangarter v. [read post]
20 Apr 2020, 3:20 pm
In a D.C. medical malpractice case, a plaintiff must prove the applicable standard of care that the defendant was required to meet, that the defendant failed to meet the standard of care, and that the defendant’s failure caused the plaintiff’s injury. [read post]
16 Feb 2023, 4:05 am
Plaintiff alleges this action by the County “forced the Church’s members to remain away from church against their will, under threat of punishment,,,,” [T]he allegations of the FAC regarding the County’s alleged unconstitutional policy is sufficient overcome the County Defendants’ argument that it cannot be liable under Monell. [read post]
20 Apr 2009, 2:52 am
Some points worth pondering arising from the recent pleadings fight Both the movie studios and iiNet brought motions for summary judgment and/or to strike parts of the other side’s pleadings relating to the claims that (1) iiNet authorised infringement, (2) iiNet was liable as a primary infringer for actually reproducing the allegedly copied films and (3) whether or not iiNet was also liable in conversion. [read post]
4 Oct 2010, 5:26 am
Holding it liable for this single violation, the DA’s Office argues, will collapse Section 1983 liability into respondeat superior, punishing offices solely for employing a tortfeasor. [read post]
