Search for: "Test Plaintiff" Results 6801 - 6820 of 21,970
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Mar 2018, 8:25 am by Liisa Speaker
The plaintiff filed for divorce in 2016, when the youngest child was 5 years old. [read post]
14 Mar 2018, 8:01 am by Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
The agency responded that enacting sunroof standards was “not reasonable,” partially because it had no way to test safety. [read post]
13 Mar 2018, 1:52 pm
The test for which is as set out in Neutrogena Corporation & Another v Golden Ltd [1996] RPC 473 is whether on the balance of probabilities a substantial number of members of the public would be misled into purchasing the defendant's product in the belief that it was the plaintiff's. [read post]
12 Mar 2018, 5:47 pm by INFORRM
Secondly, in the action begun by the writ, the Plaintiff sought an injunction ordering Google Inc. to restrain from processing personal data relating to the Plaintiff within the jurisdiction. [read post]
12 Mar 2018, 4:00 am by Administrator
… BC Injury Law BlogPlaintiff Ordered to Pay Double Costs After Failed Parking Lot Collision Injury Claim Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Chilliwack Registry, ordering a Plaintiff to pay double costs after having a personal injury lawsuit dismissed. [read post]
11 Mar 2018, 2:58 pm by Allan Blutstein
  Notably, Judge Kavanaugh stated in a concurring opinion that the Court’s "four-factor test for awarding attorney’s fees in FOIA cases is inconsistent with FOIA’s text and structure, and impermissibly favors some FOIA plaintiffs over other equally deserving FOIA plaintiffs. [read post]
11 Mar 2018, 11:31 am by Dennis Crouch
  Specifically, the court has: (1) held that the plaintiff no longer has the burden of proving substantial identity as part of the affirmative infringement case; rather, reverse equivalency is an affirmative defense with the burden on the accused infringer;[12] (2) overruled a previous case to hold that reverse equivalency is a question of fact, not an equitable determination or a question of law,[13] meaning that an accused infringer cannot readily use the doctrine as a tool to obtain… [read post]
11 Mar 2018, 12:30 am by Thaddeus Mason Pope, JD, PhD
Plaintiffs object because "the test would subject Jahi to grave injury or death" since the test means Jahi would be disconnected from her ventilator for 10 minutes. [read post]
10 Mar 2018, 4:53 pm by Howard Friedman
 [W]e conclude that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim with respect to the stained glass grant. [read post]
9 Mar 2018, 3:35 pm by Brett Young
Background Plaintiff Hector Alvarado worked for Defendant Dart Container Corporation of California from September 2010 to January 2012. [read post]
8 Mar 2018, 6:07 pm by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  Importantly, the RFRA applies only in the context of government action, and therefore would not provide a defense for an employer in a civil suit brought by a private plaintiff. [read post]
8 Mar 2018, 11:35 am by Ad Law Defense
Sanderson was surprised that the FSIS test results were the basis of Plaintiffs’ allegations because “Sanderson has consistently passed FSIS residue testing, which has shown no antibiotic residue or other contaminants in its chicken products, including on the very test dates and locations identified by Plaintiffs in their Complaint. [read post]
8 Mar 2018, 7:18 am by Docket Navigator
[H]e may not testify as to any opinion that the results reportedly observed by [plaintiff's expert] fail to indicate swelling 'to a sufficient degree to act as a thermal barrier to lessen the effects of heat or flame on the underlying fabric' because he has conducted no testing to support such a statement. [read post]
8 Mar 2018, 6:59 am by Joy Waltemath
He was told, however, that he might be eligible for reconsideration if he lost 10 percent of his weight, maintained that weight loss for six months, and provided any additional test results that were requested. [read post]
8 Mar 2018, 2:00 am by Robert Kreisman
On appeal, Cube and Tsai argued that the judge “invented a new claim, with a less stringent standard requiring just one prong of the veil-piercing test. [read post]