Search for: "Plaintiff(s) v. Defendant(s)" Results 561 - 580 of 69,995
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Jan 2019, 5:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins
   As such, the court overruled the Defendants Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiffs vicarious liability claims in this matter. [read post]
31 Jul 2020, 8:02 am by Eric Goldman
The post Plaintiff Can’t Use Trump’s Anti-Section 230 EO to Sue Facebook–Gomez v. [read post]
18 May 2022, 1:31 pm by Robertson Noreus
Key Insight: The court was required to balance the proportionality factors to determine whether plaintiffs proposed search terms that would require defendants to review 1.3 million documents were proportional to the needs of the case or if defendants’ proposal to review half as many documents was more proportional. [read post]
25 Jul 2017, 7:17 am by Docket Navigator
​ The court granted plaintiff's motion for terminating sanctions, including treble damages, attorney fees, and an injunction, for defendant's repeated disregard of court orders. [read post]
6 Jul 2016, 10:00 pm by Doug Austin
Vermont, June 6, 2016), Vermont Chief District Judge Christina Reiss denied the plaintiffs motion for an order requiring the defendant to pay expenses and fees that she incurred in opposing the defendants motion to compel production of an Excel spreadsheet from the plaintiffs expert. [read post]
4 Oct 2017, 4:42 am by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.
Plaintiff brought suit against several defendants, but by the time relevant to this appeal the only remaining defendant was the doctor who was the PA’s supervising physician on the day of the incident. [read post]
17 Aug 2015, 8:04 am by Andrea Patrick
In an opinion (http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2014-CA-001050.pdf) issued in late July, the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s grant of the defendants motion for directed verdict (MDV) that was made immediately after the opening statement by plaintiffs counsel. [read post]
  In response, defendants filed a notice removal, and plaintiff moved to remand on the grounds that defendants failed to establish CAFA’s amount-in-controversy requirement. [read post]