Search for: "Test Plaintiff"
Results 6441 - 6460
of 21,970
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Mar 2012, 10:25 am
Applying traditional tests to assess “joint employer” liability, the District Court concluded that plaintiffs did not plead the basic elements in the complaint to hold the hospital system and its CEO liable for alleged unpaid wages. [read post]
6 Jun 2011, 4:00 am
Fulop, the plaintiff sues for a judicial declaration of his or her ownership interest and entitlement to associated economic and shareholder voting rights.Plaintiff Allan Bombard and defendant Leonard Kellner were long-time acquaintances when Bombard, a physician, assisted Kellner, a non-physician, in establishing Xitenel as a licensed genetics testing laboratory company. [read post]
2 Mar 2021, 4:24 pm
Regarding the appropriate level of profit, the Court held that the tested firm need not be the parent. [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 11:42 am
The trial court granted the plaintiffs summary judgment on some of their claims, holding that the statements alleging sexual abuse were "libel per se," which means that because the statement alleges a crime, the plaintiffs are presumed to have been defamed by the statements. [read post]
15 Mar 2015, 4:12 pm
Plaintiff was specifically named in the contract as one of two inspectors on the project. [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 11:42 am
The trial court granted the plaintiffs summary judgment on some of their claims, holding that the statements alleging sexual abuse were "libel per se," which means that because the statement alleges a crime, the plaintiffs are presumed to have been defamed by the statements. [read post]
10 Mar 2020, 1:42 pm
Comparatively, the testing, and any likely subsequent questioning of that testing, would be unnecessarily time consuming and is not warranted, with the controls that are in place. [read post]
26 Mar 2014, 12:17 pm
Whether a plaintiff comes within “the ‘zone of interests’ ” is an issue that requires us to determine, using traditional tools of statutory interpretation, whether a legislatively conferred cause of action encompasses a particular plaintiff’s claim. [read post]
21 Sep 2015, 5:38 pm
JONES, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Respondent. 1st District.Torts -- Discovery -- Work product privilege -- Trial court improperly entered order compelling defendant to disclose to plaintiff post-accident photographs of area where plaintiff was injured where plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence to obtain substantially equivalent materials to the privileged photographsSEABOARD MARINE LTD., Petitioner, vs. [read post]
19 Aug 2013, 9:47 am
United States, 337 U.S. 293 (1949) (“Standard Stations”) the Supreme Court devised what has become known as the “quantitative substantiality” test. [read post]
13 Jun 2016, 3:31 pm
This general test asks if the witness has any specialized knowledge on the subject at issue. [read post]
23 Sep 2019, 10:43 am
” Pax alleged that the analysis was based on false scientific premises about what the chlorine concentration in the test tank should’ve been. [read post]
14 Sep 2017, 1:28 pm
Indeed, the Court concluded that “Further, to the extent this was a test case, this could have prompted a higher level of activity by the respondent and, thus, would have justified an elevated costs award. [read post]
29 Oct 2014, 4:00 am
McKay, 2014 ONCJ 540 [90] I have applied the 3 pronged test set out in WD in assessing the reliability and credibility of all the evidence. [read post]
16 Oct 2010, 5:55 am
See id. at 289 (discussing the "legal certainty" test). [read post]
20 Sep 2010, 2:00 am
The next day, she suffered the first of a series of seizures and was sent to a nearby community hospital for a neurological consult and tests. [read post]
7 Jan 2024, 3:47 pm
Drivers are trained, tested, and licensed; semi-trucks and tractor-trailers feature advanced safety and monitoring equipment; fleets must follow strict regulations, but accidents still happen. [read post]
13 Feb 2019, 7:44 am
The two plaintiffs are Genzyme Corporation (holder of supplementary protection certificate No C00716606/01), and its licensee, Sanofi-Aventis (holder of the authorizations for the products Renagel and Renvela). [read post]
8 Oct 2015, 5:00 am
“[A] plaintiff whose claim is based on inadequate warnings must prove . [read post]
25 Nov 2021, 4:25 pm
The court’s analysis of the substantial burden test focused on whether the land use regulation satisfied strict scrutiny review. [read post]
