Search for: "Test Plaintiff"
Results 6321 - 6340
of 21,970
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Apr 2013, 6:55 am
” The plaintiff in the case, Naiel Nassar, went into the argument needing to persuade either Justice Alito or Justice Kennedy to vote in the employee’s favor, as they had in a prior retaliation case involving a related question. [read post]
11 Mar 2015, 7:08 am
’s, finding that its deduction did not constitute a violation of the salary-basis test. [read post]
31 Dec 2013, 6:46 pm
It thus fails the more demanding test and must be stuck down. [read post]
8 Mar 2021, 12:27 pm
Plaintiffs each entered a franchise agreement with 7-Eleven. [read post]
31 Dec 2015, 5:12 am
There would always be a couple of plaintiffs from the forum state, and a couple of plaintiffs from the defendant’s home state to destroy diversity as another ground for removal. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 9:34 am
The plaintiffs are not alleging that they faced overt racism or discriminatory hiring tests but rather their lawyers argue that managers subconsciously favored whites across state government, leaving blacks at a disadvantage in decisions over who got interviewed, hired and promoted. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 9:50 am
Alcon, however, presented evidence that the tests in question were believed to be inconclusive and that the inventor simply forgot about another test. [read post]
2 Jun 2020, 10:35 am
Expert witness opinions about the nature and cause of plaintiffs’ medical conditions, are the linchpin of mass tort cases involving claims of bodily injury from allegedly harmful products. [read post]
12 Jan 2016, 10:34 am
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ test for substantial similarity has two parts: an “extrinsic” test and an “intrinsic” test. [read post]
9 Mar 2019, 9:33 am
But we cannot simply substitute Plaintiffs’ ipse dixit for evidence. [read post]
23 Apr 2015, 1:05 pm
Still, even if the state claim fails that test because it would impose a “broader” duty than can be found in federal law, it appears we may not find the claim preempted just because it conflicts with “any” federal requirement. [read post]
11 Jul 2022, 4:23 pm
" … [A] two-part test governs the exception. [read post]
25 Sep 2013, 8:00 am
But whether a plaintiff was actually coerced has to do with whether the government has – objectively speaking – imposed penalties on the plaintiffs. [read post]
21 Dec 2012, 5:55 am
The likelihood of confusion test is ill-suited to expressive speech, as reflected by the fact that the Appeals Court had to twist the factors of the test beyond recognition to apply them here. [read post]
21 Dec 2012, 5:55 am
The likelihood of confusion test is ill-suited to expressive speech, as reflected by the fact that the Appeals Court had to twist the factors of the test beyond recognition to apply them here. [read post]
23 May 2016, 5:51 am
Plaintiff UGSI sued Palermo for trade libel and false advertising under California and federal law (having previously dismissed a tortious interference claim). [read post]
20 Feb 2009, 5:04 am
" Id. at *3.So plaintiffs sue everybody. [read post]
3 Aug 2020, 12:28 pm
The Court concluded that all six of Plaintiffs’ claims, regardless of the label that Plaintiffs used, directly involved government funds and, therefore, were subject to the notice of claim requirement. [read post]
12 Nov 2020, 10:53 am
Indeed, “as a result of testing, NatureWise had knowledge that certain lots of the Products did not match their label claims. [read post]
21 Apr 2016, 11:48 am
Without a defect, plaintiff had no right to recovery against defendant. [read post]
