Search for: "Test Plaintiff"
Results 7721 - 7740
of 21,971
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Nov 2014, 2:09 pm
But I do think that the argument that such laws flunk the “rational basis” test — which is deliberately very deferential to legislative judgment — isn’t terribly persuasive. [read post]
4 May 2011, 11:00 am
Co., 556 F.3d 41, 50 (1st Cir. 2009) (applying reasonable probability test, but noting that test is similar to preponderance), with Frederico v. [read post]
5 Jan 2011, 5:39 am
As such, if the contamination was traveling to the DVL site from the GE site, it apparently was not doing so via the tested aquifer. [read post]
16 Sep 2011, 4:58 pm
Thus, there was no duty owed by the law firm to the Plaintiff. [read post]
11 Aug 2009, 5:19 am
Similarly, "unwarranted deductions of fact" in a complaint are not admitted as true for the purpose of testing the sufficiency of plaintiff's allegations. [read post]
9 Oct 2008, 12:20 pm
In particular, Orphan was testing whether Xyrem could be used to treat fibromyalgia, and it initiated Phase I of its FDA clinical trials in June 2004, which it passed. [read post]
16 Feb 2010, 5:14 am
In Van Breda the court determined that it was necessary to “simplify the test and to provide for more clarity and ease in its application”. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 3:41 pm
The Court noted that “[t]his test can be met if the complaint’s particularized allegations raise a “substantial likelihood” of personal liability by a majority of the board. [read post]
31 Oct 2012, 5:07 am
The court also denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment to the extent they sought a finding that the subsequent business was not a successor in interest, reasoning that under the relevant tests (the traditional common law test OR the “substantial continuity test”) a finder of fact could certainly find that the subsequent business was a successor in interest to plaintiff’s actual employers. [read post]
14 Jun 2017, 11:16 pm
Of course, plaintiffs, in Korea, had a very difficult time proving (c) causation (cause of the injuries) and the Korean Supreme Court in 2000, among other reasons, created a test that assisted in allowing plaintiffs to more easily prove damages in product liability cases in Korea. [read post]
3 Feb 2022, 3:11 pm
This test places the initial burden on the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of retaliation by a preponderance of the evidence. [read post]
3 Dec 2022, 3:00 am
At the time of termination, the plaintiff was 52 years old. [read post]
3 Dec 2022, 3:00 am
At the time of termination, the plaintiff was 52 years old. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 6:36 am
I hope to be able in later posts to examine whether the courts must defer to the plaintiffs’ counterintuitive assertion that such a requirement would compel the plaintiffs to be complicit in their employees’ use of contraceptives in a way their religions prohibit. [read post]
13 Dec 2006, 5:08 am
There are a wide variety of tests of varying degrees of scientific merit one can use to suggest a vehicle is "too prone" to roll over, and plaintiffs have the benefit of cherry-picking which tests to apply to which vehicles. [read post]
20 Jan 2009, 2:38 am
In this case, the lead plaintiff relied exclusively of the conduct test to establish subject matter jurisdiction.In applying the conduct test, the court analyzed whether the alleged fraudulent conduct of the Vodafone defendants were "substantial acts in furtherance of the fraud" committed in the United States. [read post]
20 Oct 2015, 6:59 am
Glatt’s primary beneficiary test. [read post]
13 Jul 2010, 1:13 pm
The Court then reviewed the record, criticizing the trial court for not crediting evidence of the right to terminate at will set forth in the contracts between defendant and plaintiffs and other evidence consistent with employment, including the lack of any need for specialized training and the fact that the Internal Revenue Service declared the plaintiffs employees under its multi-factor employment test. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 9:51 am
The Plaintiff brought a motion to force disclosure. [read post]
21 Apr 2009, 12:01 am
Cienega X addressed the question of whether valuation of the lost income from use of the plaintiff's property or valuation of the change in real property value measured before and after the taking period is the more appropriate measure of the Penn Central test. [read post]
