Search for: "Plaintiff(s)"
Results 4561 - 4580
of 178,510
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jul 2024, 1:56 pm
Today, on the very last day for filing an appeal, the Colorado Attorney General and UCCC Administrator filed a Notice of Appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals of the Colorado federal district court’s order in favor of the plaintiffs in NAIB, et al v. [read post]
22 Sep 2020, 5:52 pm
“Equifax, class counsel strike back at plaintiffs’ lawyer who slammed $380 mln deal”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has a post that begins, “The class action plaintiffs’ lawyer Jay Edelson knew he was exposing himself to attack when he filed a proposed amicus brief earlier this month at the 11th U.S. [read post]
24 Jul 2012, 12:31 pm
Henceforth, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted and plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. [read post]
26 Sep 2011, 11:18 am
The Defendant’s expert never examined the Plaintiff. [read post]
3 Sep 2024, 9:30 am
Inside Information: Plaintiff submitted an affirmation of an expert medical malpractice lawyer who opined that awards in prior similar cases demonstrated that plaintiff’s “settlement is far less than what a jury might award, and which the appellate division has sustained. [read post]
11 Mar 2015, 10:41 am
" Plaintiff's Complaint makes reference to 28 U.S.C. [read post]
22 Apr 2023, 6:00 am
Further, NYSIF was unable to verify plaintiff's employment with the employers that plaintiff provided. [read post]
22 Apr 2023, 6:00 am
Further, NYSIF was unable to verify plaintiff's employment with the employers that plaintiff provided. [read post]
7 Oct 2018, 10:01 pm
Friedrich, denied the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions for allegedly destroying two surveillance videos, stating: “Because Ball has not proven—even by a preponderance of the evidence—that GW permanently stored the Lafayette Hall surveillance footage, the Court need not conduct further inquiry under Rule 37(e). [read post]
17 Feb 2009, 8:37 pm
The order also permanently enjoins the defendants from making any use of marks that are confusingly similar to the plaintiffs’ marks, and from selling any product that purports to have any connection with Jimi Hendrix, the plaintiffs, or the Hendrix family. [read post]
27 Jun 2007, 8:48 am
Here’s the indictment, the press release from the U.S. [read post]
21 May 2018, 5:00 am
.), the court overruled a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to allegations of recklessness contained in a Plaintiff’s motor vehicle accident Complaint. [read post]
15 Sep 2010, 6:11 am
It was going on in Mississippi firms before the litigation boom in the late 90's and has probably resumed in some firms. [read post]
12 Aug 2011, 7:51 am
Plaintiff's motion to compel the deposition of defendant's systems architect was granted. [read post]
8 Feb 2023, 6:15 am
The post No Pseudonymity in Case Alleging Defendant "Inappropriately Smack[ed Plaintiff's] Buttocks" appeared first on Reason.com. [read post]
4 Oct 2016, 6:55 pm
Together, loss causation and reliance (i.e., that the defendant’s alleged misrepresentation caused the plaintiffs to buy or retain the company’s stock) establish the required nexus between the defendant’s alleged misrepresentation and the economic harm suffered by the plaintiff. [read post]
19 Nov 2008, 10:42 pm
Reminds me of those catchy names plaintiff's groups often use (see, e.g., United States v. [read post]
7 Jan 2014, 11:38 pm
The authors suggest that the burden with respect to the price distortion showing could either be on the plaintiffs or the defendants, but that either way the defendants would have the opportunity to attempt to rebut the showing. [read post]
11 Mar 2013, 4:00 pm
Andrews recently granted defendant’s motion to disqualify plaintiff’s lead counsel because “[the lead counsel] was serving as [defendant’s] opinion counsel at the time [plaintiff] filed” its patent infringement suit against defendant, and “thus creat[ed] an impermissible concurrent conflict of interest. [read post]
18 Apr 2017, 10:00 pm
Molzen recommended that the court grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss after the plaintiff’s erased and reset her iPhone the day before it was produced for forensic examination, the “culmination of her and her husband’s willful failure to comply with their discovery obligations in this case. [read post]
