Search for: "Test Plaintiff"
Results 2681 - 2700
of 21,977
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Nov 2010, 4:50 pm
This approach captures the concerns that underlie the various tests and offers a pathway through the semantic jungle. [read post]
29 Oct 2013, 11:30 am
Second, a plaintiff almost certainly won't be able to obtain damages (or fees) under state trade secrets law absent some actual misappropriation.The inevitable disclosure doctrine is a very narrow path to secure injunctive relief, and the court's stringent four-factor test to award such relief typically guards against unduly speculative, factually empty cases. [read post]
26 Dec 2014, 7:56 am
The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly dismissed the action against the defendants because, contrary to the conclusions of the trial court, (1) they are not an ‘arm of the state,’ entitled to sovereign immunity, pursuant to the test articulated by this court in Gordon v. [read post]
11 Oct 2013, 2:28 pm
In this action, the plaintiff fell off a ladder while dusting a six-foot shelf and was injured. [read post]
9 Aug 2021, 8:10 am
In Palmiter, the plaintiff employee was terminated from her job for failing a drug test, despite informing the laboratory that she was prescribed medical marijuana and providing a copy of her medical marijuana certification. [read post]
11 Oct 2013, 2:28 pm
In this action, the plaintiff fell off a ladder while dusting a six-foot shelf and was injured. [read post]
19 Feb 2013, 9:47 am
I have always understood that the tests in these two types of cases differed substantially, and it will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court draws a distinction. [read post]
4 Jan 2016, 7:03 am
"[Plaintiff] asserts that [defendant's expert] has employed a novel and untestable approach to further reduce the royalty rate to which [plaintiff] might be entitled. . . . [read post]
7 Dec 2016, 6:55 am
The court denied plaintiff's motion to amend an earlier judgment that the asserted claims of plaintiff's GPS patent were invalid for lack of patentable subject matter and rejected plaintiff's argument that Enfish, LLC v. [read post]
12 Mar 2013, 7:33 am
The court denied defendant's motion to exclude plaintiff's conjoint market research surveys. [read post]
19 Feb 2015, 7:11 am
Feb. 17, 2015 Mariani, J.).This case involved a products liability claim arising out of injuries from the Plaintiff's use of a table saw.Notably the court retroactively applied Tincher and its analysis, including the analysis with respect to the application of the Restatement of Torts (Second) test, i.e. the risk/utility test.In denying the Defendant's motion, the court noted feasible alternative designs that could have possibly avoided the injury.Judge Robert… [read post]
10 Jun 2023, 11:00 pm
PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENDANT OUTWEIGHED ANY PURPORTED HARM TO THE PLAINTIFFIn response to motions made by the parties, in a case brought pursuant to the Child Victim’s Act, the Niagara County Supreme Court struck inflammatory language, which it viewed as “scandalous and prejudicial,” from the complaint, granted a request to seal the pleading, and directed plaintiff’s counsel to pay $750 in counsel fees and $45 in filing fees.On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth… [read post]
31 Jan 2018, 7:27 am
Defendant simply argues that, 'reasonable or not,' it didn’t have an 'intent to deceive.' But this is not the test for evaluating . . . [read post]
10 Apr 2015, 12:08 pm
The plaintiff reasoned that because the defendant had the ability to, and often did, delete and disapprove of third-party comments, the comments that were allowed to stand were essentially “approved” by defendant. [read post]
10 Apr 2015, 12:08 pm
The plaintiff reasoned that because the defendant had the ability to, and often did, delete and disapprove of third-party comments, the comments that were allowed to stand were essentially “approved” by defendant. [read post]
13 Nov 2015, 8:30 am
A pregnancy test was ordered and it was determined that she was in fact pregnant. [read post]
26 Jul 2016, 6:50 am
The court denied plaintiff's motion for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
5 May 2017, 6:17 am
The Supreme Court devised that test in the Burlington Northern case in 2006. [read post]
28 Aug 2019, 8:02 am
The plaintiff has hired Civil Engineering Expert Witness Dr. [read post]
9 Aug 2019, 7:57 am
Specifically, the defendant argues that Bergman did not do any testing, did not perform any studies, did not take any notes as to how people safely stepped onto or off of the curb, did not determine the sufficiency of the lighting, and did not speak directly to the plaintiff. [read post]
