Search for: "ALL PLAINTIFFS "
Results 5681 - 5700
of 95,166
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jun 2013, 10:08 am
Kamala Harris' letter states that the state officials litigated on the belief (which they undoubtedly preferred) that any injunction should apply statewide as to all county clerks and registrars and as to all persons, not only the named plaintiffs. [read post]
29 Jul 2013, 12:52 pm
In its decision, the Court dismissed all of the common law claims. [read post]
17 Nov 2014, 3:06 pm
Justice Connors expressed particular concern that the majority’s holding seemed to invalidate all similar administrative rules used by other agencies. [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 6:00 am
" Although Plaintiff argued that she was the subject of disparate treatment as compared to a white and Jewish coworker "who was allegedly not subject to any scrutiny, was repeatedly promoted, and was permitted to work overtime," Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she and her coworker were "similarly situated in all material respects". [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 6:00 am
" Although Plaintiff argued that she was the subject of disparate treatment as compared to a white and Jewish coworker "who was allegedly not subject to any scrutiny, was repeatedly promoted, and was permitted to work overtime," Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she and her coworker were "similarly situated in all material respects". [read post]
3 Sep 2010, 5:30 am
Applying CAFA’s home-state exception, a District Court in Missouri granted the plaintiff’s second motion to remand after it determined through limited discovery that more than two-thirds of all plaintiffs are citizens of Missouri. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 6:42 am
" A plaintiff who fails to do this is subject to the defendant's "exception of prematurity," which is a procedural mechanism by which the defendant can petition the court to dismiss the plaintiff's claim until the medical review panel has properly conducted its review. [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 5:43 am
" A plaintiff who fails to do this is subject to the defendant's "exception of prematurity," which is a procedural mechanism by which the defendant can petition the court to dismiss the plaintiff's claim until the medical review panel has properly conducted its review. [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 5:20 am
Some would say it's all a bit of an Aggravation. [read post]
3 Mar 2016, 2:26 pm
Specifically, courts must consider all relevant factors, not just profit, when determining whether production is in paying quantities. [read post]
7 Mar 2014, 10:02 am
For all we know, she got exactly what she paid for, which makes us (and the defendant) wonder how she had standing to sue at all. [read post]
22 Jul 2024, 12:34 pm
Unlike Murthy, the case came to the Supreme Court on a motion to dismiss before any discovery had been conducted and when courts are required to accept all of the plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true. [read post]
9 Jul 2018, 12:52 pm
Fee Request Slashed: From $350,000 Requested To $150,000 Awarded Plaintiffs’ lawyers requested a fee award of $350,000. [read post]
13 May 2022, 7:28 am
All the Notice does is give the plaintiff very clear notice of the charges he faced, the names of witnesses who might testify, and copies of Burner's and Siddiqui's mother's complaints. [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 4:27 am
This represents a departure from Rule 23, in which the filing of a complaint tolls the statute of limitations “as to all asserted members of the class” even if the putative class member is not cognizant of the suit’s existence. [read post]
8 Aug 2011, 12:44 pm
Even assuming all of [defendant's] allegations regarding stock options backdating are true, [it] fails to link the propriety of [plaintiff's] employee compensation and accounting practices to acquisition of the patents in suit. . . . [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 8:10 am
Collyer of the District of Columbia issued orders in each of the cases yesterday requiring the plaintiff to show in writing by June 21 why all of the defendants except one in each case (that's defendants 2 through 2,000 in one case, 2 through 4,577 in the other) shouldn't be dismissed under a federal rule governing when defendants can and can't be joined together in one lawsuit. [read post]
15 Oct 2009, 5:36 am
In denying defendant's motion for attorneys' fees following plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of its patent claims, the court concluded that defendant's fees and expenses were incurred due to its delay in asserting an affirmative defense and its "almost piratical" demand "that plaintiff 'dismis[s] with prejudice all pending litigation' (including other cases) and pay defendant $1,200,000, an amount that is more than double… [read post]
22 Jun 2009, 5:46 am
Hayes, III Plaintiffs and Counsel: Lawrence "Larry" Keeter was the injured plaintiff. [read post]
10 Sep 2007, 10:57 am
Specifically, all of them (all the rulings and all the rights). [read post]
