Search for: "Test Plaintiff"
Results 321 - 340
of 21,844
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Mar 2024, 5:49 am
IRS that plaintiff was eligible for attorney’s fees even though it never received responsive documents. [read post]
29 Feb 2024, 3:17 pm
This breach could involve errors in conducting medical tests, misinterpreting test results, neglecting symptoms, or failing to follow up on concerning findings. [read post]
29 Feb 2024, 2:43 pm
A recent detour to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated that decision in light of the new rule, but also remanded the case to determine whether the 2024 rule itself complies with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (as the plaintiffs now claim). [read post]
29 Feb 2024, 6:43 am
The court found that the predecessor was too defunct, and predecessor’s relationship to Plaintiff too attenuated, for Plaintiff to claim that Plaintiff had been Lawyer’s client. [read post]
28 Feb 2024, 7:26 am
In Graham and McNatt, the plaintiffs sought compensation from Prince and the Galleries that sold his pieces for artwork they saw as infringing on their copyrights. [read post]
28 Feb 2024, 4:24 am
Johnson applying the test set forth in the Supreme Court’s decision in Hazelwood Sch. [read post]
27 Feb 2024, 9:01 pm
This is true even though Hubbard itself could have reached the result it did on narrower grounds; because civil discovery to dig up evidence to support the plaintiff in Hubbard could very well have been intrusive, the Hubbard court could have rejected the plaintiff’s retaliation claim there without shutting down retaliation claims where, as here (according to Disney), no intrusive discovery is needed to establish improper government motive. [read post]
27 Feb 2024, 2:39 pm
But the Donahue court stated that the “Determination of whether attorney owed legal duty to non-clients so as to be liable to non-clients in legal malpractice action is determined by weighing factors in balancing test, including: existence of specific intent by client that purpose of attorney’s services were to benefit plaintiffs, foreseeability of harm to plaintiffs as result of attorney’s negligence, degree of certainty that plaintiffs… [read post]
27 Feb 2024, 7:49 am
Three cases before the Supreme Court will test whether that’s true for the freedom of speech.In National Rifle Association v. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 2:08 pm
Quite significantly, the Court also squarely rejected the County’s argument that the fair argument test should apply to decisions determining the section 15183 exemption to be inapplicable even if the substantial evidence standard applies to decisions upholding its application. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 11:50 am
According to a group representing the plaintiffs, the deal has no specific cap; BP estimated that it would pay approximately $7.8 billion. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 11:23 am
Nor did plaintiffs successfully plead joint/secondary liability. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 9:00 am
For many conditions common among dentists and physicians, there are symptoms that are subjective in nature and cannot always be proven up with an objective test. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 5:19 am
This was true in light of the fact that the plaintiff submitted evidence, too, such as lab tests from the plaintiff’s doctor.Cases like this illustrate the difficulty of winning a summary judgment motion.Denial of Reconsideration Not Eligible for AppealNot every decision by a trial court can appealed. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 12:33 am
The Law Society recommended that the bill should include an objective test for defining a SLAPP and that what is defined to be ‘in the public interest’ should be significantly redrafted. [read post]
24 Feb 2024, 1:10 pm
Even when judges blast specific plaintiffs, they still aren’t taking the corrective action—they aren’t applying their reasoning to other cases or other Ds, they aren’t imposing sufficient penalties to deter. [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 1:43 pm
In that case we have a zone of interests test and a proximate cause test—adding in a harm requirement at least for claims that sound in 43(a). [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 11:06 am
” The Court evaluated Doe’s request for anonymity based upon the Fourth Circuit’s existing test, which looks at five non-exhaustive factors when ruling on motions to proceed by pseudonym. [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 5:26 am
” The brief also notes that this approach would require courts to “perform backward-looking inquiries” to determine if a plaintiff is entitled to sue, further wasting judicial resources. [read post]
22 Feb 2024, 12:06 pm
Contributory Infringement The standard common law contributory infringement test: “one who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another. [read post]
