Search for: "Test Plaintiff" Results 7661 - 7680 of 21,971
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Jun 2017, 8:29 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
This includes plaintiff's failure to attend a meeting in Goldfarb's office and plaintiff's failure to notice that the state had sent the wrong examination booklets for a test while preparing for an an Advanced Placement English test.Defendant further says plaintiff did not provide adequate guidance to teachers on a number of occasions (an allegation that plaintiff refuted "in a detailed and thoughtful response" and that… [read post]
27 Jun 2017, 8:00 am by Todd Presnell
The Deposition Plaintiff Broyles sent Convergent a deposition notice seeking Stephens’ testimony. [read post]
27 Jun 2017, 8:00 am by Todd Presnell
The Deposition Plaintiff Broyles sent Convergent a deposition notice seeking Stephens’ testimony. [read post]
26 Jun 2017, 6:45 pm by Marketing
In assessing aggravated damages, Justice Warren applied the two-part test, inquiring: whether the plaintiff established that the defendant’s conduct in effecting the termination was unfair or in bad faith, and whether the plaintiff established that she suffered mental distress as a result of the manner of dismissal and not just as a result of the dismissal itself. [read post]
26 Jun 2017, 8:26 am by Hall Marston
But, since “affiliation” lacks precision, we can no doubt anticipate that the outer limits of Justice Alito’s doctrine will be tested, and if possible stretched by what is an ever aggressive mass tort bar. [read post]
26 Jun 2017, 8:26 am by Hall Marston
But, since “affiliation” lacks precision, we can no doubt anticipate that the outer limits of Justice Alito’s doctrine will be tested, and if possible stretched by what is an ever aggressive mass tort bar. [read post]
26 Jun 2017, 6:45 am by Eric Goldman
Losing the lawsuit isn’t great for the plaintiff, but if the plaintiff’s lawyer worked on contingency (which I’m assuming is the case), then a loss on the merits means the plaintiff only lost some upside. [read post]
26 Jun 2017, 2:15 am by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.
Thomas Hospital “committed the offense of assault and battery by beating, electrocuting, and burning her while she was undergoing medical testing. [read post]
24 Jun 2017, 7:59 am
The fees and costs will have to be paid out of the Bishop's own corporation sole, since it was the plaintiff against the donor.After the disciplinary hearing concluded on March 30, the hearing panel took the matter under submission for briefing before issuing its decision. [read post]
24 Jun 2017, 5:52 am by Stephen Pitel
The Dissent The dissent would not modify the “strong cause” test (paras 125 and 171). [read post]
23 Jun 2017, 3:02 pm by Mark Tabakman
The lawyer for the plaintiffs claimed they had a strong case on the classification issue. [read post]
23 Jun 2017, 1:50 pm by Andrew Frisch
The district court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against the defendants’ attorney holding that he was not covered under the FLSA’s retaliation provisions because he was not plaintiff’s employer. [read post]
23 Jun 2017, 9:45 am by Robert Schaffer
The Federal Circuit applied the two step Alice analysis, affirming a finding of Section 101 ineligibility and a failure by plaintiff to state a claim of contributory or induced infringement. [read post]
23 Jun 2017, 7:27 am by Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
  This means that plaintiff can make a claim with the drunk driver’s insurance company, but also with the owner of the bar who served the drunk driver after he or she was already intoxicated. [read post]
22 Jun 2017, 5:40 pm by Amy Howe
The named plaintiff in the class action is Alejandro Rodriguez, who was held for more than three years without a hearing. [read post]
22 Jun 2017, 4:39 pm by Kevin LaCroix
The Second Circuit rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to argue that the First Circuit’s “extreme departure” test was the appropriate standard. [read post]
22 Jun 2017, 4:39 pm by Kevin LaCroix
The Second Circuit rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to argue that the First Circuit’s “extreme departure” test was the appropriate standard. [read post]