Search for: "Others unknown to Plaintiff" Results 361 - 380 of 2,353
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 May 2013, 7:29 am by Evan Brown (@internetcases)
” The court went on to warn that “[w]hile the Court will not automatically hold plaintiff responsible for the alleged abuses of others in its industry, it will not hesitate to impose sanctions where warranted. [read post]
6 May 2011, 4:30 am
 Insofar as the defendant speculated that other unknown class members might have damages exceeding $75,000, the Court remarked that this speculation failed because the defendant must show that the plaintiff himself claimed such damages. [read post]
27 Apr 2012, 8:31 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Haley and Laura Maechtlen Antitrust claims are not unknown or uncommon anymore for employers. [read post]
31 May 2013, 8:49 am by Melissa Wojtylak
  However, as we’ve seen plaintiffs do in other medical device cases, plaintiff later decided to pursue the surgeon alone, and backed away from her defect theory. [read post]
25 Mar 2024, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
And it held that the trial court wrongly concluded, among other things, that one-sided pseudonymity—pseudonymity for plaintiff when the plaintiff has named the defendant—is impermissible: [The] entry of a default judgment tipped powerfully in Doe's favor…. [read post]
3 May 2024, 8:11 am by Eugene Volokh
And it held that the trial court wrongly concluded, among other things, that one-sided pseudonymity—pseudonymity for plaintiff when the plaintiff has named the defendant—is impermissible: [The] entry of a default judgment tipped powerfully in Doe's favor…. [read post]
22 Mar 2014, 5:16 am by Marty Lederman
”  (On the other hand, I have arguedthat plaintiffs’ allegations of complicity do not satisfy the pleading standards RFRA requires, because those assertions are pitched at such a high and abstract level of generality, without any effort to explain, or even to articulate, why the plaintiffs' religion would make them morally culpable in such a case if they were to comply with federal law. [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 3:24 am by Sean Wajert
One of the consequences to the community of such an extension is the cost of insuring against liability of unknown but potentially massive dimension. [read post]
1 Mar 2014, 6:22 am by Legal Reader
Plaintiff could not, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, have discovered the wrongful case of Plaintiff's injuries at an earlier time because the injuries were caused without perceptible trauma or harm, and when Plaintiff's injuries were discovered their cause was unknown to Plaintiff. [read post]
10 Mar 2023, 8:24 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Feb. 14, 2023) Plaintiffs sued defendants for state and federal trademark infringement and related claims. [read post]
20 Apr 2016, 4:30 am
  The same group of lawyers apparently filed other “essentially identical class actions” with different sets of named plaintiffs, including one in Delaware federal court that resulted in the dismissal of a New York consumer fraud claim. [read post]
10 Mar 2014, 11:31 am
Oct. 20, 2005) (“The mere fact that for some unknown reason Plaintiff did not take the deposition of [the prescriber’], to preserve his testimony during his lifetime while the instant case was pending, provides no justification for a change or expansion of existing law”); Olsen v. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 1:09 pm
   In addition, “voluntary reporting suffers from chronic underreporting and other biases, and the unknown nature of the underlying population makes true reporting rates difficult to obtain and use for comparisons. [read post]
11 May 2010, 2:20 pm by Robinson, Calcagnie & Robinson
Since defendant did not engage in active conduct that increased the risk of harm to plaintiffs, there is no basis for imposing a legal duty on him to prevent the harm inflicted by unknown third persons. . . . [read post]
10 Aug 2019, 8:22 am by Larry
The future risk depends entirely on how long the 301 duties stay in place, which is an unknown. [read post]
14 Nov 2007, 8:53 pm
Plaintiff alleged Antonia and Maria Chavez and the other unknown owners of the restaurant infringed plaintiff’s registered trademarks ACAPULCO, ACAPULCO MEXICAN RESTAURANT, and ACAPULCO RESTAURANT Y MEXICAN CANTINA in connection with restaurant and cantina services. [read post]