Search for: "Plaintiff(s)"
Results 6561 - 6580
of 178,471
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Sep 2018, 4:10 pm
The plaintiff’s allegations raise a number of issues. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 7:05 am
Dep’t of the Army (D.D.C.) -- awarding plaintiff costs and $111,415 in attorney’s fees—after reducing plaintiff’s fee request for time spent on unsuccessful issues—in case concerning access to Army’s mental-fitness questionnaire and related records. [read post]
23 Feb 2013, 2:28 pm
There the Court ordered plaintiff to pay $27,831.63 in attorney’s fees. [read post]
27 Jan 2011, 4:20 am
The court rejected plaintiff's free exercise claim, finding that plaintiff "was unable to identify anything religiously significant" about the property on which it sought to build. [read post]
7 Jun 2020, 8:55 am
The danger that others be able to call the Plaintiffs hypocrites is not a significant limitation on Plaintiffs’ speech or right to associate. [read post]
13 Jun 2021, 5:20 pm
The court noted that it would draw an adverse inference that the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not sustain serious damage given that the Plaintiff failed to produce photographs of the vehicle’s damages and failed to explain the reason for his failure to produce that information. [read post]
14 Jun 2021, 5:00 am
.), the court granted a Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss a Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for bad faith but allowed the Plaintiff to file yet another Amended Complaint.According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff alleged a breach of contract where the carrier subsequently paid a disputed amount of total liability and lost income coverage. [read post]
14 Jun 2021, 5:00 am
.), the court granted a Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss a Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for bad faith but allowed the Plaintiff to file yet another Amended Complaint.According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff alleged a breach of contract where the carrier subsequently paid a disputed amount of total liability and lost income coverage. [read post]
24 Apr 2019, 5:00 am
.), the court sustained a UIM carrier’s demurrer relative to a Plaintiff’s bad faith claim in a Post-Koken matter but, given that the statute of limitations had not yet expired, granted the Plaintiff leave to amend. [read post]
13 May 2021, 5:00 am
The court noted that it would draw an adverse inference that the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not sustain serious damage given that the Plaintiff failed to produce photographs of the vehicle’s damages and failed to explain the reason for his failure to produce that information. [read post]
28 Jul 2008, 9:21 pm
This opinion is pure gold for plaintiffs civil rights lawyers seeking fees under 42 U.S.C. [read post]
21 May 2012, 4:18 pm
The Verdict Following a trial on the merits of the case the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. [read post]
15 Sep 2016, 5:46 am
In this patent infringement action between Ultratec and CaptionCall, CaptionCall filed a motion for relief from the stipulated protective order in order to use confidential commercial information from Ultratec (the plaintiffs) in an inter partes review of Ultratec's patent. [read post]
25 Jun 2011, 1:30 pm
Term 2d Dept. 2011) Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant was permitted to move to dismiss on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action notwithstanding defendant’s service of an answer (CPLR 3211 [...] [read post]
27 May 2015, 12:08 pm
OMG, Inc., et al., the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals clarified that a plaintiff’s burden, when bringing a design defect or inadequate warnings claim under the Ohio Products Liability Act, is to prove the injury was reasonably foreseeable to the manufacturer. [read post]
29 Jul 2020, 1:15 pm
On July 24, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas that a State asserting sovereign immunity could not be joined as an involuntary plaintiff, but dissented from the district court’s holding that the case could not proceed in the State’s absence. [read post]
27 Oct 2015, 7:45 pm
Ninth Circuit calls for response to plaintiffs' petition for rehearing en banc in O'Bannon v. [read post]
27 May 2015, 12:08 pm
OMG, Inc., et al., the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals clarified that a plaintiff’s burden, when bringing a design defect or inadequate warnings claim under the Ohio Products Liability Act, is to prove the injury was reasonably foreseeable to the manufacturer. [read post]
8 Jul 2008, 9:18 am
Of course the story doesn't give the company's side of the story and I am sure there is one. [read post]
14 May 2024, 7:59 am
The trial court granted Walmart’s request over the plaintiff’s objection. [read post]
