Search for: "Test Plaintiff"
Results 5901 - 5920
of 21,970
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Jan 2019, 8:04 am
In deciding whether the plaintiff was an employee or an independent contractor, the federal district court applied an economic-reality test, questioning whether the plaintiff was so dependent upon the defendants as to come inside the protection of FLSA or whether she was sufficiently independent to be outside the ambit of the relevant statute. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 9:00 pm
Burr when testing the immunity of governmental “sue and be sued” entities (like the Tennessee Valley Authority), to immunize the Tennessee Valley Authority from the plaintiffs’ claims. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 7:09 pm
She will now, by virtue of court Order get paternity and genetic testing. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 6:51 pm
Defendants do not explicitly address Plaintiffs’ theory of harm to their privacy interests anywhere in their Proposed Conclusions of Law. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 4:00 pm
But the waters of marijuana product liability lawsuits aren’t well-tested. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 2:48 pm
Many times this jurisdictional difference worked itself out because plaintiffs often brought both Section 11 and Section 10(b)-5 claims in the same federal court complaint. [read post]
14 Jan 2019, 9:01 pm
Here, the Court interposes another rule to protect pregnancy discrimination plaintiffs. [read post]
14 Jan 2019, 3:08 pm
Based on the “arising out of” language in the exclusion, the court applied a “but-for” test to determine whether the allegations against the individuals arose out of their uninsured capacities with the investment vehicles. [read post]
14 Jan 2019, 8:27 am
The Supreme Court decided 5 to 4 that Plaintiffs may not do so. [read post]
14 Jan 2019, 7:00 am
The court also held that the plaintiff’s claims were not typical because the plaintiff claimed actual identity theft damages, whereas “the vast majority of class members never reported becoming a victim of identity theft. [read post]
13 Jan 2019, 10:04 am
… Based on the allegations in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint, the Court sees the speech as the Plaintiffs’ posts that the Governor deleted, as well as the future speech that they wish to engage in, within the forum of the “Paul LePage, Maine’s Governor” Facebook page. [read post]
11 Jan 2019, 2:32 pm
The fact that Wisconsin law authorized the blood test, on the theory that Mitchell had consented to the test by getting behind the wheel, does not make the law constitutional, he contended. [read post]
11 Jan 2019, 2:04 pm
On December 14, 2018, Reuters reported that internal documents produced by J&J in a lawsuit brought by 11,700 plaintiffs who allege their cancer was caused by asbestos found in talc in Baby Powder, reflect that J&J senior officers and lawyers knew for many years. [read post]
11 Jan 2019, 10:14 am
Such tests, the plaintiffs argue, are essential to a well-rounded, well-informed case. [read post]
11 Jan 2019, 8:23 am
Her treating physicians not only presented objective medical evidence of test results, the medical records included evidence that Plaintiff suffered from symptoms consistent with the diagnosis. [read post]
10 Jan 2019, 1:22 pm
In some cases, the plaintiffs’ lawyers receive even more. [read post]
10 Jan 2019, 9:41 am
The shop teacher testified that before a student was permitted to use the machine unsupervised, they had to pass a written test. [read post]
9 Jan 2019, 2:54 pm
Under US law, to prevail on a copyright infringement claim, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant has actually copied the plaintiff's work; and that the copying is of a substantial similarity exists between the defendant's work and the protectible elements of plaintiff's. [read post]
9 Jan 2019, 1:07 pm
According to the talcum powder asbestos cancer lawsuit, filed in Alameda County California Superior Court, the plaintiff developed mesothelioma from years of using asbestos-contaminated talcum powder products developed and manufactured by Johnson & Johnson with materials sourced by Imerys Talc USA. [read post]
9 Jan 2019, 12:51 pm
However, the court denied emotional distress recovery to the mother because she did not pass something called the “zone of danger” test. [read post]
