Search for: "Test Plaintiff"
Results 6321 - 6340
of 21,970
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Aug 2018, 8:29 am
The panel then concluded that the district court applied the correct test in determining that the evidence could satisfy the proximate cause test with respect to five out of the six alleged price declines. [read post]
9 Aug 2018, 6:31 am
But as the majority puts it: "the dissent mistakenly applies the Bennett burden-shifting test to Suri's claim that Cirullo tacitly sought sexual favors from her, and mistreated her after she rebuffed him. [read post]
9 Aug 2018, 5:30 am
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal ruled as recently as 2016 that “Presumptively, if the defendant has chosen a qualified expert (s) to conduct an IME/testing, then their choice should be respected, unless the circumstances make the choice an unreasonable one. [read post]
9 Aug 2018, 3:21 am
“The Virginia Action is an important case that will likely continue to test the First Amendment’s boundaries. [read post]
8 Aug 2018, 10:59 am
David Madigan did not meet the liberal New Jersey test for admissibility. [read post]
8 Aug 2018, 10:30 am
” If a defendant can make that showing, “then the plaintiff claiming trademark infringement bears a heightened burden … the plaintiff must satisfy not only the likelihood of confusion test but also at least one of Rogers’ two prongs. [read post]
8 Aug 2018, 6:12 am
The burden shifted to the plaintiff to show not only likelihood of confusion but also at least one of Rogers’ two prongs: explicit misleadingness or lack of artistic relevance. [read post]
8 Aug 2018, 6:11 am
Their expert report tested the scalp protector versus petroleum jelly five times and each time found that the relaxer penetrated the scalp protector after a few minutes, while petroleum jelly lasted 30 minutes. [read post]
8 Aug 2018, 4:00 am
[Plaintiff] was bit on his left thumb, as well as his right thigh and calf area, and left buttocks. [3] [Plaintiff] sued the Defendants… […] [56] Given my findings, [Plaintiff] shall have judgment against both Defendants, jointly and severally, in the sum of $15,127.89, plus costs. [read post]
7 Aug 2018, 3:41 pm
To establish such a claim, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that but for the medical professional’s breach of their duty to advise the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs would not have been required to assume the extraordinary obligations associated with raising the child because they would have had the opportunity to terminate the pregnancy. [read post]
7 Aug 2018, 3:07 pm
While they were out on the test-drive, another motorist rear-ended the plaintiffs. [read post]
7 Aug 2018, 1:46 pm
She underwent initial diagnostic testing at the direction of her physician, but he failed to order any follow-up testing. [read post]
7 Aug 2018, 11:59 am
This means employers could be held to the ABC test even though it wasn’t binding law when its workers were hired or employed. [read post]
6 Aug 2018, 10:54 am
And her colleagues in Sacramento are not known for rebuffing the entreaties of the plaintiffs’ bar—who have never much liked arbitration. [read post]
6 Aug 2018, 8:14 am
There were many additional medical treatments and tests that doctors performed related to the man’s injuries. [read post]
6 Aug 2018, 7:36 am
Courts in the Second Circuit apply an "ordinary observer test to determine if two works are substantially similar, but apply a “more discerning test” if works have both protectible and unprotectible elements or if, as in our case, copying is not exact. [read post]
6 Aug 2018, 7:23 am
"[B]ecause [counsel] did not represent [plaintiff] in that prior matter, there is no way that he could have had access to relevant privileged information belonging to [plaintiff], which is the third requirement of the test. [read post]
6 Aug 2018, 1:59 am
The case was brought by a registered female whose chromosome testing revealed that they were neither of female or male sex. [read post]
3 Aug 2018, 11:00 am
Circuit holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing. [read post]
1 Aug 2018, 1:36 pm
As the Department of Justice wrote in one of its briefs in Defense Distributed’s recent constitutional challenge:Even if plaintiffs are correct that computer code can serve as “an expressive means for the exchange of information and ideas about computer programming,” Junger v. [read post]
