Search for: "Plaintiff(s) v. Defendant(s)"
Results 241 - 260
of 69,809
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 May 2024, 8:00 am
NuSil Technology (5th—F084899) Exclusive Remedy Rule—Fraudulent Concealment Exception—Statute of Limitations—Court of Appeal, affirming trial court’s judgment, held that complaint filed by plaintiffs Kevin O’Bryan (O’Bryan) and his wife Tiffany O’Bryan against O’Bryan’s employer, defendant NuSil Technology, LLC, for fraudulent concealment under Labor Code § 3602(b)(2) was barred by... [read post]
28 May 2024, 9:01 pm
Plaintiffs’ Copyright Infringement Theories Training the AI Requires Copying Copyrighted Works Most of the plaintiffs in the cases, with the notable exception of Doe 1 v. [read post]
28 May 2024, 8:05 pm
In arriving at that decision, the Court of Appeals considered the four factors stated above and noted, inter alia, that (1) there was no indication that the plaintiff’s tardiness was deliberate or habitual; (2) the plaintiff’s tardiness was minimal; (3) the plaintiff’s explanation for being late, although not compelling, was not outlandish; and (4) there was no indication of prejudice to the defendants. [read post]
28 May 2024, 8:05 pm
In arriving at that decision, the Court of Appeals considered the four factors stated above and noted, inter alia, that (1) there was no indication that the plaintiff’s tardiness was deliberate or habitual; (2) the plaintiff’s tardiness was minimal; (3) the plaintiff’s explanation for being late, although not compelling, was not outlandish; and (4) there was no indication of prejudice to the defendants. [read post]
28 May 2024, 10:05 am
Gamino v. [read post]
28 May 2024, 10:03 am
(2022) (overruling the constitutional right to abortion); and last week's ruling in Alexander v. [read post]
28 May 2024, 8:46 am
Sebastian Holdings, Inc. (346 Conn. 564); whether Appellate Court incorrectly determined that plaintiff's claims against defendants were barred by litigation privilege). [read post]
28 May 2024, 7:46 am
Superior Court in McGee v. [read post]
28 May 2024, 6:00 am
Conte v. [read post]
28 May 2024, 6:00 am
Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that they did not owe a special duty of care to the plaintiff (see Koyko v City of New York, 189 AD3d at 812; Morgan-Word v New York City Dept. of Educ., 161 AD3d at 1068; Destefano v City of New York, 149 AD3d at 698). [read post]
28 May 2024, 6:00 am
Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that they did not owe a special duty of care to the plaintiff (see Koyko v City of New York, 189 AD3d at 812; Morgan-Word v New York City Dept. of Educ., 161 AD3d at 1068; Destefano v City of New York, 149 AD3d at 698). [read post]
28 May 2024, 5:00 am
In the case of C.M. v. [read post]
27 May 2024, 11:00 pm
# # #DECISIONM. v. [read post]
27 May 2024, 10:48 am
His comments risked leading the jury to improperly defer to his opinion on the plaintiff’s credibility, which is the jury’s responsibility to assess.Legal Precedents and ImplicationsThe decision in Moustakis v. [read post]
27 May 2024, 5:00 am
P., Inc. v P.C.F., Inc. [read post]
27 May 2024, 2:50 am
The Court also denied the bank’s request to dismiss our Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief under California’s Unfair Competition Law. [read post]
26 May 2024, 8:05 am
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. [read post]
25 May 2024, 4:53 pm
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in Lear Siegler, Inc. v. [read post]
24 May 2024, 11:03 am
CPU Litigation, Bledsoe et al v. [read post]
24 May 2024, 8:55 am
The defendant’s insurance carrier offered to settle the case for $25,000 and sent the plaintiff’s lawyer a release agreement. [read post]
