Search for: "Test Plaintiff"
Results 241 - 260
of 21,844
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Jul 2008, 9:47 am
(Plaintiff here was not under the influence and she sued.) [read post]
2 Dec 2021, 10:00 am
” To prevail on a claim of copyright infringement, a plaintiff must satisfy both tests “for the works to be deemed substantially similar. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 4:33 am
Plaintiffs argued that they did not intend for the minor plaintiff to be present in court for an extended period of time during any phase of the trial, but argued that she had the constitutional right to be present. [read post]
19 Oct 2020, 7:47 am
” As the court reasoned, following the plain language of Rule 23(h) “ensures that class members have full information when considering . . . a fee request” as well as “ensures that the district court is presented with a fee petition that has been tested by the adversarial process. [read post]
19 Oct 2020, 7:47 am
” As the court reasoned, following the plain language of Rule 23(h) “ensures that class members have full information when considering . . . a fee request” as well as “ensures that the district court is presented with a fee petition that has been tested by the adversarial process. [read post]
19 Oct 2020, 7:47 am
” As the court reasoned, following the plain language of Rule 23(h) “ensures that class members have full information when considering . . . a fee request” as well as “ensures that the district court is presented with a fee petition that has been tested by the adversarial process. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 9:45 am
Upon initial review of their claims in federal court, plaintiffs lost. [read post]
12 Aug 2021, 7:28 am
Test trials, which are called bellwether trials, help the parties and the court find out how juries will decide in the typical case. [read post]
12 Aug 2021, 7:28 am
Test trials, which are called bellwether trials, help the parties and the court find out how juries will decide in the typical case. [read post]
12 Aug 2021, 7:28 am
Test trials, which are called bellwether trials, help the parties and the court find out how juries will decide in the typical case. [read post]
18 Nov 2008, 3:01 pm
To hold a product seller strictly liable, the plaintiff has to prove both that the product was defective and that the defect caused the plaintiff’s harm. [read post]
31 Oct 2017, 5:49 am
The company was also alleged to have not conducted adequate testing. [read post]
6 May 2019, 8:51 am
In the appeal, the plaintiffs asked the court to rule that Dynamex applied retroactively. [read post]
18 Mar 2013, 9:35 am
Plaintiff asserted that its product was superior to defendants’ equipment, which employed a conventional destructive testing technique, because plaintiff’s method was non-destructive and allowed testing of in-service pipelines, and because the testing was faster. [read post]
4 Feb 2022, 9:46 am
" The Supreme Court endorsed this test in Gisbrecht v. [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 9:34 am
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. [read post]
11 Jul 2018, 6:12 am
National Australia Bank, which held that Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 does not apply extraterritorially. [1] Since Morrison was decided, plaintiffs’ lawyers have been testing the limits of what constitutes a “domestic” transaction for purposes of a federal securities fraud claim. [read post]
27 Jul 2015, 10:36 am
In so holding, Judge Baer reasoned that the plaintiffs had not satisfied the DOL test because there were questions as to whether they could meet some of the six required factors.[2] Judge Baer also denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. [read post]
10 Aug 2011, 5:25 am
The trial court used a different "adverse employment action test," which asks whether the plaintiff suffered a "material adverse change in the terms and conditions of employment," such as demotion, pay cut, demotion or significantly diminished responsibilities. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 7:35 am
Observing that such facts created legitimate criticisms, the Court stated that in the future it might well employ bright-line test declining to certify such holders as class plaintiffs because "Delaware courts have good reason to expect more from those who would serve as lead plaintiffs in representative litigation. [read post]
