Search for: "Test Plaintiff"
Results 5141 - 5160
of 21,970
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Sep 2019, 10:45 am
We do not recognize a blanket exemption from the Ordinance for all of Plaintiffs' business operations. [read post]
16 Sep 2019, 8:55 am
” Under the competing tethering test (usually used when claims are brought by competitors, “unfair means conduct that threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law or violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law…” Ignoring the antitrust part of this, plaintiffs alleged (and the court agreed) that they also satisfied the tethering test because defendants… [read post]
16 Sep 2019, 4:30 am
The courts apply a ‘substantial similarity’ test in these actions, which are more difficult to prove. [read post]
14 Sep 2019, 7:08 am
Plaintiff sought to recover $2.3 million, but jurors ultimately awarded $1.75 million. [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 8:28 am
Rider’s methodology is common in the professional and scientific community’ 2) the over-reliance on the plaintiff’subjective testimony; and 3) the lack of any testing or replication of the circumstances behind the slip and fall. [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 7:08 am
” Finally, the plaintiff argued that his pay did not comply with the “reasonable relationship” test under 29 C.F.R. [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 6:42 am
Ohio Aug. 27, 2019) contains a very thorough exposition of the law concerning accommodations in test taking for those with mental impairments. [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 6:13 am
There has been some debate in the federal courts over whether portions of the Colon test survive the Supreme Court's ruling in Ashcroft v. [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 4:00 am
If the plaintiff’s cause of action survives this test, the court then applies a second test: whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of [the official's] alleged misconduct. [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 4:00 am
If the plaintiff’s cause of action survives this test, the court then applies a second test: whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of [the official's] alleged misconduct. [read post]
10 Sep 2019, 1:17 pm
The Appellate Division reversed, finding that the employer satisfied the ABC test. [read post]
10 Sep 2019, 12:55 pm
The two plaintiffs had something else in common. [read post]
10 Sep 2019, 10:42 am
Fundamentally, the adverse possession test is about the degree of control exercised by the plaintiff. [read post]
10 Sep 2019, 4:00 am
The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision denying Plaintiff's petition.The Appellate Division explained that Plaintiff's challenging SDHR's determination of "no probable cause" with respect to her complaint based on her status as a caregiver for a member of her family failed as a matter of law as serving as a care giver for an ailing family member is not a protected activity under the State's Human Rights Law.With respect to… [read post]
9 Sep 2019, 1:20 pm
Could this ruling embolden plaintiffs? [read post]
9 Sep 2019, 9:15 am
” A one time saliva test allegedly can’t do that. [read post]
9 Sep 2019, 6:30 am
Plaintiffs would test these waters much more often, creating an onslaught of high stakes litigation that would imperil the Court’s commitment to professional standards as it decides cases. [read post]
8 Sep 2019, 8:17 pm
This paragraph is particularly difficult and requires some breaking down to discern its object beyond the collection of key terms arranged like ink blots on a Rorschach test. [read post]
8 Sep 2019, 3:15 am
Is Making the Law’s Definition of Hacking Obsolete https://t.co/HCANCYuCxu 2019-09-03 As traditional retail markets flail, the digital economy shrugs off global instability https://t.co/qPtloEseFl 2019-09-03 Canada: Attornment Is A Shield, Not A Sword: The Court Of Appeal Disallows Plaintiff's Attempt To … https://t.co/DpnjKnxncT 2019-09-03 What the Takedown of Two Streaming Services Means for Piracy https://t.co/ahpBSsp3KQ 2019-09-03 Distributed Artificial Intelligence… [read post]
7 Sep 2019, 5:34 pm
The exclusion of the plaintiff’s expert testimony in Diaz v. [read post]
