Search for: "Plaintiff(s)"
Results 7301 - 7320
of 178,486
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jun 2012, 3:11 pm
The plaintiffs worked in the defendant's various movie and video game rental stores, where they claim that they were required to perform work while not on the clock. [read post]
28 Jul 2020, 4:23 pm
The court should also give consideration to other factors, though, such as the extent and nature of the plaintiff’s injuries. [read post]
3 Aug 2015, 10:34 am
First, plaintiff’s warning defect expert was unqualified. [read post]
18 May 2012, 3:51 am
The defendant (or defendants) is the person, business or other entity being accused of having caused the plaintiff’s injury. [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 11:10 am
To resolve the drafting impasse, Plaintiff’s Motion will be scheduled for Court hearing shortly. [read post]
10 Oct 2019, 9:17 pm
Plaintiffs sought to preliminarily enjoin the City, the Mayor of the City, and the City’s Commissioner of Buildings from enforcing the amendments, which would subject them to the City’s stringent zoning and permitting scheme for adult establishments. [read post]
12 Apr 2016, 5:50 pm
The court held that, under Riegel, plaintiff’s claims would be preempted if the device had been approved under the PMA process, the device implanted in plaintiff was an HDE device, and there was no real dispute that HDE devices are subject to the FDA’s PMA process. [read post]
11 Sep 2012, 3:06 pm
Judge Thynge noted that the “work product protection is not automatically waived through a client’s (or former client’s) production of documents since that protection is invoked by the attorney. [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 4:11 pm
Superior Court (February 22, 2012), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Five) reduced at least some of that confusion, upholding the right of the plaintiff in a second, related action to exercise a peremptory challenge after the plaintiff in the earlier-filed action had already done so. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 8:00 am
., ___F.3d ___ (9th Cir. 2/25/15), the plaintiff sued the defendant, Sears, for disability discrimination under the FEHA and wrongful termination. [read post]
26 May 2017, 6:38 am
Importantly, given the “motion to dismiss” stage, the court also declined to consider the government’s evidence (in the form of expert affidavits) disputing plaintiff’s technical statements about NSA must operate. [read post]
8 Feb 2021, 9:00 am
Supreme Court found that Plaintiff's "unsupported allegation failed to evidence bad faith". [read post]
26 Jun 2009, 5:01 pm
The Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the Plaintiff was exempt from the FLSA’s overtime provisions pursuant to the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) exemption. [read post]
12 Jun 2015, 8:00 am
The arbitration agreement covered the plaintiff's allegation that he was misclassified. [read post]
25 Nov 2010, 7:01 am
THERE WAS IRREGULARITY IN THE PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE COURT'S ALLOWING EVIDENCE Over the objection of counsel for the plaintiff, defendant's counsel engaged in what can be described as nothing less than misconduct. [read post]
30 Aug 2019, 4:36 pm
According to the federal district court, the defendant in the case at bar was entitled to summary judgment because there was no evidence that suggested that the defendant’s proffered reasons for the plaintiff’s termination were pretextual, no reasonable jury could conclude that the plaintiff’s coworkers’ conduct was so objectively severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of her employment, the plaintiff could not… [read post]
1 Apr 2009, 6:04 pm
In California, when a plaintiff dies, the plaintiff's estate can recover punitive damages, although the plaintiff's heirs cannot recover punitive damages in a wrongful death action. [read post]
16 May 2021, 6:18 am
As such, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion. [read post]
31 Oct 2022, 7:05 am
The plaintiff alleges that the defendant’s product CAMCEVI® infringes the plaintiff’s patent, which also covers the plaintiff’s Eligard® product. [read post]
31 Oct 2022, 7:05 am
The plaintiff alleges that the defendant’s product CAMCEVI® infringes the plaintiff’s patent, which also covers the plaintiff’s Eligard® product. [read post]
