Search for: "Test Plaintiff" Results 4501 - 4520 of 21,968
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Apr 2020, 4:39 am by Saloni Khanderia
The Plaintiffs contended that the use of this mark is dishonest and aimed at encashing on the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff. [read post]
24 Apr 2020, 4:37 am by Dennis Crouch
Anastasia Beverly Hills, 921 F.3d 1343, 1355-59 (11th Cir. 2019) (denying trademark plaintiff’s demand for a jury trial on its disgorgement claim); Fifty-Six Hope Rd. [read post]
24 Apr 2020, 3:10 am by Chijioke Okorie
In Moneyweb v Media24 (South Africa), the plaintiff’s argument (rejected by the court) was that the defendant’s publication of the allegedly infringing articles constitutes unlawful competition because the defendant sought to derive an advantage over one of its key competitors (the plaintiff) by making use of the resources expended by the plaintiff to produce the articles concerned. [read post]
23 Apr 2020, 3:55 pm by Richard Hunt
It is significant that the alleged fraud included that false claim that automated testing of the website would be sufficient. [read post]
23 Apr 2020, 2:52 pm by R. Clark Morrison and Scott Birkey
The Court’s new “functional equivalency” test will create many factual issues that would not have arisen under a bright line test such as the one advanced by EPA. [read post]
23 Apr 2020, 12:10 pm by Michael DeRose
 The plaintiff in that matter, a former police officer, had voluntarily and irrevocably retired from his position under a settlement agreement after he was suspended for a positive drug test. [read post]
23 Apr 2020, 9:32 am by Eric Goldman
Thus, the court runs through the standard Section 230 three-part test: 1) ICS provider/user. [read post]
23 Apr 2020, 8:45 am by Gritsforbreakfast
Instead, it ruled the Harris County judges were the wrong plaintiffs. [read post]
23 Apr 2020, 8:12 am by Yosie Saint-Cyr
Justice Russell agreed with the plaintiff that various aspects of Mr. [read post]
22 Apr 2020, 5:30 pm by Jacob Sapochnick
Additionally, if you do not meet the three-part test outlined above, the order does not apply to you. [read post]
21 Apr 2020, 9:02 pm by Mavrick Law Firm
  While there is no bright line test in determining whether plaintiffs are sufficiently similar, the more legally significant differences that exist among the opt-in plaintiffs, the less likely it is that the court will determine that the group of employees is similarly situated. [read post]
21 Apr 2020, 4:41 pm
COVID-19 has again exposed the power of the space, which marks the confines of the legalization of politics, the judicialization of political contests around fundamental issues of morals, ethics, social norms, and international relations. [read post]
21 Apr 2020, 3:08 pm by Kevin LaCroix
One of the companies to get hit with a COVID 19 related securities suit is the pharmaceutical company Inovio; as discussed here, a plaintiff shareholder filed a securities suit against the company based on alleged statements by the company’s CEO about the company’s readiness to prepare and begin testing a coronavirus vaccine. [read post]
21 Apr 2020, 5:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
Rather, the court ruled that under Rule 4010(a)(4)(i) allows the representative to be present only during the interview portion of the evaluation, but not during any part of the testing portion.Lastly, the court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion to Designate the Defense Vocational Expert as a Professional Witness. [read post]
20 Apr 2020, 3:26 pm by Lebowitz & Mzhen
”  Under the substantial factor test, the defendant’s conduct must be a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff’s damages. [read post]
20 Apr 2020, 3:11 pm by Lebowitz & Mzhen
Generally, in a Maryland negligence claim, a plaintiff must show that a defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, the defendant breached that duty, the plaintiff suffered an injury or loss, and the damages proximately resulted from the defendant’s breach of the duty. [read post]
20 Apr 2020, 2:31 pm by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano
Specifically, the affidavit stated that given the plaintiff’s presentation and health history, there was no basis for the defendant to recommend any other treatment, tests, or consultations. [read post]