Search for: "Class Action Defense" Results 6461 - 6480 of 12,825
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Mar 2013, 2:53 pm by rhall@initiativelegal.com
While the attack on class and other representative actions continues under the cover of advancing “the liberal policy favoring arbitration,” courts continue to articulate a sensible class action jurisprudence in response to mass wrongs where no particular victim has a rational incentive to seek an individual remedy. [read post]
22 Mar 2013, 5:54 am by Jon Hyman
— from The Employer Handbook Blog When Bad Things Happen to Good Employers: An Equal Employment Opportunity — from HR Defense Blog Can Body Odor Fall Under Religious Protection? [read post]
21 Mar 2013, 12:43 pm by Kirk Jenkins
 who regard Knowles as a significant and unqualified win for the defense bar. [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 4:20 am by Lorene Park
Confirm you have authority to enter a discovery agreement or take other actions that might be called for in judicial conferences; written confirmation for your records is advisable. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 10:23 am by Ron Coleman
Perhaps the reason no one has sought a trademark class action over AdWords before is that it probably can’t be done. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 7:14 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Ester-C, alleging that it misled consumers into thinking that Ester-C products were a form of immune system defense, misrepresented that Ester-C was a superior source of Vitamin C, and made its claims without credible scientific support. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 2:47 am by Andrew Trask
The takeaway from this case: while it won't work every time, defense attorneys should watch out for when a notice provision will create an individualized issue for a proposed class. [read post]
18 Mar 2013, 11:00 am by Katherine Gallo
Plaintiff brought a personal injury action against the defendant. [read post]
15 Mar 2013, 9:13 am by Joe Consumer
In the morning, the Center for Justice & Democracy participated in a hearing on the topic of “litigation abuses,” which CJ&D defined this way:   As a result of hundreds if not thousands of so-called “tort reform” laws that have passed around the country in the last 30 years, a series of recent Supreme Court decisions that have stripped everyday people of their legal rights (including providing corporations with the ability to ban all class… [read post]
14 Mar 2013, 11:00 am by Marvin Kirsner
Such determinations should be documented in detail, as they may be the only defense to a charge that a confidentiality request violates an employee’s Section 7 rights. [read post]
14 Mar 2013, 6:26 am
Thousands of the other cases against Johnson & Johnson have been consolidated into a class action in federal Court in Ohio. [read post]
13 Mar 2013, 7:24 pm by rhall@initiativelegal.com
CLS Transportation case, the California Court of Appeal’s First Appellate District has affirmed a trial court’s holding that an arbitration clause categorically proscribing class and representative actions is unconscionable. [read post]
13 Mar 2013, 5:36 am by Gritsforbreakfast
Exoneree Michael Morton was the star witness, exhibiting remarkable grace and class. [read post]
13 Mar 2013, 5:24 am by Bexis
 As always, with a Class III device, the central arguments on summary judgment concerned preemption. [read post]
13 Mar 2013, 5:23 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  And realistically, without a class action remedy, most investors will not be able to recover under Section 10(b) – the typical case is far too expensive to litigate as an individual action. [read post]
12 Mar 2013, 10:24 pm by Kevin LaCroix
There could be significant defense costs and damages in such actions which can vary from thousands to millions of rupees. [read post]
12 Mar 2013, 5:00 am by Kimberly A. Kralowec
Employers are also entitled to litigate any individual affirmative defenses they may have to class members' claims. [read post]
11 Mar 2013, 7:40 am by Mary Dwyer
§ 2254(d)(1), by granting habeas relief on the ground that the Nevada Supreme Court unreasonably applied “clearly established Federal law, as determined by” this Court when it held that respondent’s right to present a defense was not violated by the exclusion of extrinsic evidence through which he sought to impeach a prosecution witness on a collateral matter. [read post]