Search for: "Plaintiff(s)"
Results 6921 - 6940
of 178,474
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Apr 2011, 9:53 pm
But that’s not what they’re seeking, exclusively or even mainly; and indeed this isn’t a proper Rule 23(b)(2) suit. [read post]
25 Aug 2015, 3:11 pm
The court also ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to pay $25,000 in attorney’s fees. [read post]
29 Dec 2020, 4:00 am
Green, 411 U.S. 792, whereby upon the plaintiff's making a prima facie case of retaliation the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate action was not in the nature of retaliation but made for legitimate business reasons. [read post]
29 Dec 2020, 4:00 am
Green, 411 U.S. 792, whereby upon the plaintiff's making a prima facie case of retaliation the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate action was not in the nature of retaliation but made for legitimate business reasons. [read post]
16 Jul 2009, 12:40 am
As a result, [plaintiff's licensor] was not an exclusive licensee of the patent, and could not have granted an exclusive sublicense to [plaintiff]. [read post]
10 May 2022, 5:00 am
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed a Supreme Court's decision granting Plaintiff's petition challenging an arbitration award and remanding the matter for a new hearing before a different arbitrator. [read post]
10 May 2022, 5:00 am
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed a Supreme Court's decision granting Plaintiff's petition challenging an arbitration award and remanding the matter for a new hearing before a different arbitrator. [read post]
10 May 2022, 5:00 am
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed a Supreme Court's decision granting Plaintiff's petition challenging an arbitration award and remanding the matter for a new hearing before a different arbitrator. [read post]
10 May 2022, 5:00 am
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed a Supreme Court's decision granting Plaintiff's petition challenging an arbitration award and remanding the matter for a new hearing before a different arbitrator. [read post]
California’s High Court Authorizes Stay Of Non-Individual PAGA Claims During Pendency Of Arbitration
7 Aug 2023, 10:20 am
In Adolph, the plaintiff worked as a food delivery driver for the defendant’s Uber Eats platform. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 8:59 am
In granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment that its claims were not barred by prosecution laches, the court rejected defendant's argument that "plaintiff lacked a reasonable basis for filing the continuation application and therefore plaintiff must have intended to prejudice [defendant]. . . . [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 4:48 am
The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's willful infringement claim for failure to state a claim. [read post]
4 Nov 2015, 6:31 am
Furman found federal question jurisdiction over the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim which depended on the defendant's infringement of the plaintiff's patent. [read post]
1 Jun 2018, 5:00 am
The defense filed a summary judgment asserting that the Plaintiff’s action was barred by the exculpatory waiver in the Plaintiff’s membership agreement. [read post]
28 Dec 2018, 7:05 am
.) -- ruling that plaintiff had failed to submit any new evidence warranting reconsideration of court’s earlier decision that plaintiff failed to meet statute’s six-year statute of limitations, and noting that state trial court judge’s statement about plaintiff’s federal records did not override FOIA’s statute of limitations. [read post]
18 Nov 2016, 8:42 pm
Superior Court of California, San Francisco County 16-466 Issue: Whether a plaintiff’s claims arise out of or relate to a defendant’s forum activities when there is no causal link between the defendant’s forum contacts and the plaintiff’s claims—that is, where the plaintiff’s claims would be exactly the same even if the defendant had no forum contacts. [read post]
10 Jan 2018, 8:13 pm
In their amended complaint, the passengers/plaintiffs alleged that the hard landing of their flight from Cancun, Mexico, to Houston caused permanent injuries to plaintiff Sylvia Callahan’s spine. [read post]
17 Oct 2008, 3:48 pm
The court applied the Calder effects test, and held it was reasonable for the defendant, in using the plaintiff's name, to expect to be haled into court in the plaintiff's home state. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 8:04 am
The court dismissed all but the first-named defendant in plaintiff's infringement action for improper joinder. [read post]
6 Jul 2018, 7:17 am
[Plaintiff] cannot rely merely on its ownership and control of [its subsidiary] (or on [its subsidiary's] tax status) to prove that [the subsidiary's] profits flow inexorably to [plaintiff]. [read post]
