Search for: "Plaintiff(s)"
Results 6001 - 6020
of 178,423
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 May 2019, 12:38 pm
The plaintiff was hired as a site representative for the defendant’s residence. [read post]
20 Mar 2023, 12:52 pm
(See my blog post on the Second Circuit’s reversal of a prior settlement in 2016.) [read post]
4 Jun 2008, 12:08 pm
Plaintiff’s lawyer moved to remand the class action to state court, but the motion was denied, id. [read post]
31 Jan 2022, 6:00 am
Nov. 18, 2021)Plaintiff, a stockholder and creditor of the defendant company, demanded to inspect the company’s books and records pursuant to 8 Del. [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 1:00 pm
The psychiatrist was the plaintiff’s sole treating doctor. [read post]
10 Apr 2021, 10:14 am
.) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff’s untimeliness claim was moot because EOUSA responded to plaintiff’s request, which sought statistical information about grand juries, after plaintiff filed his Complaint; (2) plaintiff constructively exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to the adequacy of EOUSA’s search, but granting summary judgment in agency’s favor. [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 11:07 am
Civil Rights Search and seizure; probable cause Where a police officer found marijuana stems in the plaintiff's garbage, and the plaintiff had received shipments from a supplier of marijuana cultivation products, the officer did not violate the plaintiff's constitutional rights in getting a search warrant for the plaintiff's home. [read post]
12 May 2007, 1:17 am
First, the plaintiff could show that (1) the defendant had access to the plaintiff’s copyrighted work, and (2) the defendant’s work is substantially similar to the plaintiff’s copyrighted work. [read post]
14 Nov 2017, 6:48 pm
.) -- denying pro se plaintiff's opposition and cross motion because plaintiff failed to show "excusable neglect" for filing them late; further denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration because plaintiff offered no "good reason" for reopening court's decision on government's summary judgment motion. [read post]
4 Sep 2018, 3:16 pm
The plaintiff’s request for review was denied. [read post]
16 Aug 2009, 8:39 pm
While plaintiffs submitted 100 pages in support of their class certification motion, defendants introduced expert testimony that Belo’s press release contained three distinct parts: “DMN’s circulation decrease resulted from (1) fraudulent overstatements; (2) changes in DMN’s methodology; and (3) industry-wide decline in newspaper circulation” and concluded – based on an examination of 132 analyst reports – that… [read post]
11 Dec 2009, 11:47 am
” In accordance with the reinstatement of default judgment, the Supreme Court also reinstated plaintiff’s award of attorney’s fees and expenses and awarded plaintiff’s fees and costs for responding to the second appeal. [read post]
3 Dec 2014, 9:43 pm
As a private nuisance claim involves the right to use and enjoy the land in question, no actual intrusion onto the plaintiff’s property is required; trespass, involves an intentional entry onto the land of another without justification or permission. [read post]
3 Dec 2014, 9:43 pm
As a private nuisance claim involves the right to use and enjoy the land in question, no actual intrusion onto the plaintiff’s property is required; trespass, involves an intentional entry onto the land of another without justification or permission. [read post]
12 Oct 2020, 3:49 pm
Thus, if a defendant loses or destroys a plaintiff’s treatment records prior to producing them, it can impair the plaintiff’s ability to prove the defendant was negligent. [read post]
16 Apr 2018, 12:10 pm
A jury found that MLG&W violated the ADA by denying the plaintiff’s reasonable request to telecommute. [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 4:30 am
However, the defendant did not acquiesce because it felt that spending time at work was part of the plaintiff’s essential job functions. [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 7:49 am
The court granted in part defendants' motion in limine to exclude the value of non-asserted patents from plaintiff's inventor under Rule 403. [read post]
4 Jan 2008, 5:17 am
Judicial Panel Denies Plaintiff Request, Objected to by Defense Attorneys and Other Plaintiff’s Counsel, for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [read post]
23 Apr 2015, 10:38 am
Thus, the Court determined that Plaintiff’s FDCPA claim was not barred by the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations. [read post]
