Search for: "Plaintiff(s)"
Results 5821 - 5840
of 178,515
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jan 2024, 6:00 am
The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed Supreme Court's denying the Plaintiff's petition seeking to annul the Medical Board's [Board] rejection of Plaintiff's applications for accidental disability retirement [ADR] or ordinary disability retirement [ODR]. [read post]
4 Jan 2024, 5:55 am
If the jury credits plaintiff's version of events, it can find the officers knowingly violated clearly-established law in throwing him to the ground. [read post]
4 Jan 2024, 5:01 am
Plaintiff's college friends "cancelled him. [read post]
4 Jan 2024, 5:00 am
After reviewing the record before it, the court found that the evidence established that the landowner did indeed regain control over the project which resulted in the Plaintiff’s injuries. [read post]
4 Jan 2024, 4:05 am
Of course, this Court does not question the sincerity of Plaintiff’s belief that his “body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. [read post]
4 Jan 2024, 4:00 am
Because that is what Carrero alleges the City’s Policy did to him, he has sufficiently pled that the Policy’s exemption language is not neutral as applied to him....The court also allowed plaintiff to move ahead with claims under the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Illinois Human Rights Act and Illinois' Civil Rights Act. [read post]
4 Jan 2024, 2:30 am
Conversely, respondent suggests that the critical question is not whether defendant owed plaintiff a professional duty, but simply whether plaintiff was injured as a result of the provision of medical services by defendant; in other words, was plaintiff’s injury a foreseeable consequence of defendant’s act of providing medical care? [read post]
4 Jan 2024, 12:15 am
Plaintiffs sufficiently plead “the business of making consumer loans” may also include GreenSky's conduct. [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 11:00 pm
Relative to protections afforded to co-employees, a co-employee may secure immunity for negligent actions that caused a Plaintiff’s injuries while the co-employee and the Plaintiff were “in the same employ. [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 9:19 pm
Initiating a legal chess match, the motion to dismiss is a strategic move orchestrated by the defendant to seek the termination of the plaintiff’s case. [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 9:19 pm
Initiating a legal chess match, the motion to dismiss is a strategic move orchestrated by the defendant to seek the termination of the plaintiff’s case. [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 2:47 pm
Plaintiffs allege that Trump’s efforts to impede the congressional certification of the 2020 electoral college vote by, among other things, urging his supporters to march to the U.S. [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 2:12 pm
According to news reports, the expert who reviewed the records noted that almost every tooth in the plaintiff’s mouth had some form of decay on it, but that the care provided was nonetheless, “wrong. [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 10:23 am
App’x 43, 45–46 (2d Cir. 2016) (affirming summary judgment on Lanham Act claim when “[d]iscovery revealed only one customer who arguably relied upon [defendant’s] advertising in deciding between” the defendant and plaintiff)). [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 10:15 am
super blurry Google screenshot with targeted ads that don't use plaintiff's marksThe same would be true if one got results on Samsung’s website by searching “Apple iPhone,” or on Toyota’s website by searching “Honda Civic. [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 9:38 am
Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in federal court against car maker Hyundai alleging issues airsing from Hyundai’s Blue Link and connected services. [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 8:14 am
” The plaintiff in the case, Yonas Fikre, learned in 2010 that he had been placed on the No Fly List. [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 7:54 am
But when that court declined to stay EPA’s Good Neighbor Rule while it considered the merits of the rule, the plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to intervene. [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 6:00 am
" In this instance the Appellate Division opined that "The additional circumstances surrounding Plaintiff's termination support an inference that it was done in retaliation for [Plaintiff's] corroboration of allegations of sexual harassment against the former [Employee]. [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 6:00 am
" In this instance the Appellate Division opined that "The additional circumstances surrounding Plaintiff's termination support an inference that it was done in retaliation for [Plaintiff's] corroboration of allegations of sexual harassment against the former [Employee]. [read post]
