Search for: "Test Plaintiff"
Results 7081 - 7100
of 21,971
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Dec 2017, 9:26 pm
In the Sixth Circuit’s view, state-action immunity is akin to an affirmative defense to the plaintiff’s claim—a classic merits question. [read post]
13 Dec 2017, 11:04 am
Among the claims against Swagelok are that the company negligently designed, manufactured, tested, and inspected the hose assembly, allowing the hose to separate from its fitting, releasing natural gas and causing the explosion. [read post]
13 Dec 2017, 9:01 am
” Duro sufficiently pled that the statement of certification was commercial speech that is disseminated to a substantial portion of the plaintiff and/or defendant’s existing customer or client base. [read post]
13 Dec 2017, 6:16 am
Plaintiff sued defendants after a physical altercation on plaintiff’s property. [read post]
13 Dec 2017, 4:00 am
An expert report was filed in plaintiff James Aboltin’s case (the July 2016 suit). [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 10:50 am
The court of appeals noted that each of the plaintiffs was a college student hired as an intern without a promise of compensation or a position afterward. [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 6:52 am
Perfect test case. [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 3:01 am
In welcome reversal of Obama-era ban, FDA will once more permit direct-to-consumer genetic testing [Meghana Keshavan/STAT News, FDA press release] Will California law hold a pharmaceutical maker liable — in perpetuity — for a drug that it did not make and did not sell? [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 12:54 pm
” (It’s the “rational basis” test, you see, not the laugh test.) [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 4:59 am
Whatever the reason, the Wang decision cannot be heartening for plaintiffs’ lawyers, and the days of widespread lawsuits by interns are likely over. [read post]
10 Dec 2017, 9:43 am
When the plaintiff does not show up for trial, the case gets dismissed for want of prosecution or as it’s called in Texas – DWOPPED [pronounced “dee-whopped”]; when the Defendant does not appear, a default judgment will typically be entered, assuming the Plaintiff supports its claim with evidence, normally in the form of a business records affidavit in debt collection cases, rather than a live witness. [read post]
10 Dec 2017, 9:43 am
When the plaintiff does not show up for trial, the case gets dismissed for want of prosecution or as it’s called in Texas – DWOPPED [pronounced “dee-whopped”]; when the Defendant does not appear, a default judgment will typically be entered, assuming the Plaintiff supports its claim with evidence, normally in the form of a business records affidavit in debt collection cases, rather than a live witness. [read post]
8 Dec 2017, 8:39 am
This test derives from Glatt v. [read post]
7 Dec 2017, 12:37 am
Such conduct constitutes bad faith and exploiting the [local] trademark, now that it has acquired goodwill by the plaintiffs, constitutes unjust enrichment. [read post]
6 Dec 2017, 9:00 pm
The plaintiff-decedent was 34 years old and with no significant medical history. [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 10:34 am
The injured plaintiffs’ “allegations underlying the WTC Asbestos Claims vary considerably regarding the nature, timing and location of exposure, concern “a variety of asbestos materials,” concern exposure in different years, allege exposure in different locations and allege exposure through a number of means. [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 10:34 am
The injured plaintiffs’ “allegations underlying the WTC Asbestos Claims vary considerably regarding the nature, timing and location of exposure, concern “a variety of asbestos materials,” concern exposure in different years, allege exposure in different locations and allege exposure through a number of means. [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 7:14 am
" That test draws from Baptist v. [read post]
4 Dec 2017, 9:01 pm
That case was defended by the Texas Attorney General at a cost of over $1 million and with a possible award of attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs of several million more. [read post]
4 Dec 2017, 4:09 pm
Section 5 of the Defamation Act 1952 provided: In an action for libel or slander in respect of words containing two or more distinct charges against the plaintiff, a defence of justification shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff’s reput [read post]
