Search for: "Test Plaintiff"
Results 6521 - 6540
of 21,970
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jun 2018, 12:57 pm
” A later congressional amendment to that provision makes it clear that the statutory phrase “by reason of the person’s failure to vote” in the clause does not categorically preclude the use of nonvoting as part of a test for removal. [read post]
8 Jun 2018, 9:49 am
Department of Justice (“DOJ”) (and current Trump administration policies suggest that formal regulations will not be adopted in the near-term future), substantial conformance with WCAG 2.0 Levels A and AA has been considered the default standard cited to in the majority of recent litigations and settlement agreements with private plaintiffs, advocacy groups, and government regulators (e.g., DOJ). [read post]
8 Jun 2018, 6:31 am
Here is where things went wrong for plaintiff in this case.First, in June 1998, a state court authorized plaintiff's civil commitment. [read post]
7 Jun 2018, 9:54 am
The court opines that Bigelow tested on the model STLS-40. [read post]
7 Jun 2018, 9:00 am
Therefore, the court declined to apply the Server Test, and concluded that the publisher defendants “violated plaintiff’s exclusive display right [and] the fact that the image was hosted on a server owned and operated by an unrelated third party (Twitter) does not shield them from this result. [read post]
7 Jun 2018, 8:54 am
Only one judge, Justice Abella, mused that the test for jurisdiction should not focus on that place but instead on “where the plaintiff suffered the most substantial harm to his or her reputation” (para 129). [read post]
6 Jun 2018, 9:00 pm
PETA, the lead plaintiff, was credible with the appellate judges because of its undercover work 15-17 years ago to disclose abuses at UNC-Chapel Hill animal testing laboratories. [read post]
6 Jun 2018, 1:36 pm
The joint motion does not satisfy this test because: Little effort was made to show any likelihood of plaintiffs’ success on the merits in their challenge to the Payday Rule No showing was made that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury absent a stay pending review, with no actual information provided “as to whether any individual member of the plaintiff associations intends to spend money on compliance with the Payday Rule before the… [read post]
6 Jun 2018, 5:00 am
The design patent law affords the winning plaintiff all of the profits on the infringing article of manufacture. [read post]
5 Jun 2018, 5:11 am
Defendant sells his digitally manipulated artwork via the same online retailers as Plaintiff. [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 3:04 pm
What does the decision to sue over this reveal about the character of the plaintiff? [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 1:55 pm
Cancer Genetics is a diagnostics company focused on the development and commercialization of proprietary genomic tests and services to improve the diagnosis, prognosis, and response to treatment (theranosis) of cancer. [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 12:55 pm
The court used the Lexmark-modified Gordon & Breach test, noting that plaintiffs pled commercial competition by alleging that Chung has an ownership interest in some of NYM’s competitors, and that TKCM is a competitor of Kleaners. [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 8:27 am
Do any tests give clarity? [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 8:00 am
The Doe family maintained that testing performed before the baby’s second birthday confirmed the presence of an older, watershed pattern of injury and damage to both sides of the brain, which, the plaintiffs asserted, resulted from a prolonged fetal distress and traumatic delivery. [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 8:00 am
The Doe family maintained that testing performed before the baby’s second birthday confirmed the presence of an older, watershed pattern of injury and damage to both sides of the brain, which, the plaintiffs asserted, resulted from a prolonged fetal distress and traumatic delivery. [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 6:40 am
The defendant states that Stapleford did not conduct any testing, which makes his opinions unreliable and lacking in foundation. [read post]
1 Jun 2018, 3:22 pm
The Facts of the Case The plaintiff was riding in a vehicle as the front-seat passenger, when the car was pulled over by police for a traffic violation. [read post]
1 Jun 2018, 3:22 pm
The Facts of the Case The plaintiff was riding in a vehicle as the front-seat passenger, when the car was pulled over by police for a traffic violation. [read post]
1 Jun 2018, 10:52 am
The plaintiffs did not file a response in opposition. [read post]
