Search for: "Liable Defendant(s)" Results 6981 - 7000 of 21,107
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Jun 2018, 3:36 pm by Benjamin S. Persons, IV
ARE Accessories, LLC When is a product’s use “foreseeable” to the manufacturer? [read post]
2 Jun 2018, 3:36 pm by Benjamin S. Persons, IV
ARE Accessories, LLC When is a product’s use “foreseeable” to the manufacturer? [read post]
1 Jun 2018, 12:55 pm by John K. Ross
Jury: Nineteen officers, including supervisors who condoned culture of excessive force, and the county are liable. [read post]
1 Jun 2018, 10:28 am by dbllawyers
In Judge Forrest’s 25-page opinion, she concluded that neither case law nor language in the Copyright Act of 1976 were persuasive in Defendants’ argument that the location of the copyrighted image is material to determining whether Defendants infringed upon the copyright holder’s exclusive right to display. [read post]
1 Jun 2018, 8:23 am by Eugene Volokh
The libel claims as to some of the other statements were dismissed largely on the grounds that the defendants sincerely believed they were true, so the court didn't have to decide whether or not they were opinion. [4.] [read post]
1 Jun 2018, 6:54 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
For the same reason, it is also against the weight of the evidence to find that Egan, unquestionably in a position to intervene, is not liable for failing to intervene in Slezak's unreasonable use of force. [read post]
31 May 2018, 2:51 pm by Jeffrey Carr
Duty The defendant was negligent in the performance of that duty. [read post]
31 May 2018, 10:17 am by Cross & Smith
  If an employer did not have sufficient control over the employee (i.e., the employee was in such a position where they could select their job duties without employer supervision), then they cannot be held vicariously liable for the employee’s negligent acts. [read post]
31 May 2018, 9:33 am by catie
The jury found the defendants liable for causing over 38 thousand false claims, which resulted in roughly $17M in reimbursements. [read post]
31 May 2018, 7:09 am by Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
If they are injured in a foreseeable manner, a defendant may be held liable for the manufacture of a defective product. [read post]
31 May 2018, 7:09 am by Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
If they are injured in a foreseeable manner, a defendant may be held liable for the manufacture of a defective product. [read post]
30 May 2018, 4:26 am by Paul Willetts
Accordingly, MD brought a court claim seeking damages for this loss in revenue.MD sued the Employees for breach of contract, as well as their new employer, RBC, which it asserted was vicariously liable for these breaches.The Employees sought to defend against this action on the basis that the non-solicitation clause was ambiguous, vague and unreasonable. [read post]
29 May 2018, 12:31 pm by Robert J. Fleming
It is undisputed that the sheriff’s department was not served an ante litem notice. [read post]
29 May 2018, 12:31 pm by Robert J. Fleming
It is undisputed that the sheriff’s department was not served an ante litem notice. [read post]
The plaintiff denied previous treatment or the existence of these records; however, the defendant obtained a subpoena to get the plaintiff’s past medical records. [read post]
The plaintiff denied previous treatment or the existence of these records; however, the defendant obtained a subpoena to get the plaintiff’s past medical records. [read post]
29 May 2018, 12:19 pm by Sharifi Firm, APC
Additionally, a defendant can only be liable to an accident victim for their own percentage of fault. [read post]
29 May 2018, 7:23 am by MBettman
What is crucial is that there is nothing inherent in the statute that prohibits someone on the buyer’s side of the transaction from being liable under 1707.43. [read post]
29 May 2018, 12:00 am by Emma Feeney
” Section 20(a) imposes liability on every person who controls anyone liable under any provision of the Exchange Act; therefore, to sustain their Section 20(a) claim, Plaintiffs must first show Defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. [read post]