Search for: "Test Plaintiff"
Results 7061 - 7080
of 21,971
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Sep 2008, 10:59 am
Judge Shadur construed the disputed terms of plaintiffs’ electronic battery tester patent. [read post]
3 Oct 2022, 12:03 pm
According to plaintiffs, ISIS allegedly relied on YouTube during efforts to ramp up recruitment before the terrorist group took credit for killing 130 people and injuring more than 350 others during six coordinated attacks in 2015. [read post]
22 Mar 2016, 9:46 pm
Other courts have found the question to demand a “totality of the circumstances” test that depends on a number of factors, including the employee’s total compensation and the circumstances surrounding his separation from the company. [read post]
28 Sep 2014, 11:17 am
Applying the Supreme Court’s test in Morrison, the court held that the “transaction that is the focus of the statute at issue” were the murders that occurred in Colombia: “Plaintiffs’ claims are not focused within the United States. [read post]
2 Jul 2010, 2:21 pm
In Gottshall, the Supreme Court held that “the zone of danger” test allowed recovery for “those plaintiffs who sustain a physical impact as a result of a defendant’s negligent conduct, or who are placed in immediate risk of physical harm by that conduct. [read post]
10 Feb 2017, 9:53 am
A doctor who tested the plaintiff’s lumbar spine for range of motion issues “indicated only that the straight leg test was negative bilaterally,” but he did not compare his conclusions to what is normal. [read post]
14 Apr 2020, 3:36 pm
In the plaintiff’s view, the defendants deviated from good and accepted standards of medicine by failing to order additional testing in order to determine the cause of the decedent’s T wave inversion. [read post]
26 Apr 2019, 10:57 am
Tests revealed a significant edema of the brain, and emergency surgery was performed. [read post]
2nd Circuit “Cat’s Paw” decision highlights importance of employer investigations before termination
6 Sep 2016, 7:00 am
Part of conducting a meaningful investigation necessarily will include obtaining and testing the position taken by the employee under scrutiny. [read post]
26 Jan 2009, 6:20 pm
Under that test, the hirer will be liable if its breach of regulatory duties affirmatively contributes to the injury of a contractor's employee. . . . [read post]
29 Apr 2022, 4:16 pm
Further, the court ruled that the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant failed to provide him with adequate testing was time-barred. [read post]
31 Jan 2022, 3:30 am
For the first trial, there were three plaintiffs: the defendant picked one of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff picked a plaintiff, and the judge picked a plaintiff. [read post]
15 Aug 2014, 5:17 am
Rosenthal reviewed the plaintiff’s original test results and concluded the lab “fell short of the applicable standard of care” in diagnosing the plaintiff. [read post]
8 Dec 2008, 9:51 pm
The Ninth Circuit noted the district court confused the test for infringement with the test for standing: to establish standing under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff must only demonstrate that they are the owner of a mark for any class of products. [read post]
30 Mar 2011, 11:10 am
If the Allison test were applied to the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, the plaintiffs in Wal-Mart—and plaintiffs in future class actions—may face an uphill struggle persuading a court to certify requests for back pay and punitive damages for class treatment under Rule 23(b)(2). [read post]
22 Dec 2011, 2:07 pm
As with CMO, “[b]ecause [Apeldyn’s expert] did not provide particularized testimony describing his doctrine of equivalents theory on a limitation-by-limitation basis, and provided only conclusory opinions with respect to the function-way-result test, the court grants AUO’s motion for reargument and will enter judgment of noninfringement with respect to AUO. [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 12:08 am
SCF) the Plaintiff was seeking damages following a motor vehicle collision. [read post]
19 May 2017, 5:39 am
In an Illinois defective design case, a plaintiff must prove that the product had an unreasonably dangerous condition, the condition existed when the product left the defendant’s control, and the condition caused the plaintiff’s injuries. [read post]
1 Oct 2011, 11:44 am
• A private action for damages can, under certain facts, be brought under the OSEA if a four part test is met: 1) defendant violated the statute; 2) plaintiff was injured as a result of the violation; 3) plaintiff was a member of class protected by the statute; and 4) plaintiff suffered type of injury against which the statute protected. [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 8:00 am
The court’s new “supplemental rule” establishes a three-part test: First, the plaintiff has to show that the defendant’s obligation to the plaintiff is tied to the plaintiff’s emotional well-being; second, that there is an “especially likely” risk that negligence could cause “serious emotional distress;” and third, that negligent actions did cause that distress. [read post]
