Search for: "Liable Defendant(s)"
Results 7841 - 7860
of 21,109
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Mar 2015, 8:28 am
Given the absence of any opposition from defendant, future defendants will have a strong argument that the court simply did not consider this nuance. [read post]
20 Sep 2017, 9:35 am
In order to do that, however, the law puts the burden on the defendant to prove certain things, such as that the defendant didn’t create the problem and didn’t have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition on the property. [read post]
29 Apr 2017, 5:05 pm
For there to be inducement liability, however, there must be an underlying direct infringement that the defendant’s conduct induced. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 12:03 am
Counterclaims – This is normally given first by the defendant as an answer to the plaintiff’s claim. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 11:26 pm
Counterclaims – This is normally given first by the defendant as an answer to the plaintiff’s claim. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 3:00 am
Baum, P.C., may be liable to the Stein defendants for causing or contributing to the plaintiff's alleged damages (see Schauer v Joyce, 54 NY2d 1, 6; see also Frederick v Meighan, 75 AD3d 528, 532). [read post]
21 Jun 2014, 7:04 am
Advanced argued that jurisdiction was proper because of Real Action’s e-mail to its subscriber list announcing its acquisition of PepperBall’s recipe. [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 8:22 am
Quizno’s posted a few sample videos that it could be held liable for, but surely Section 230’s immunity would cover the videos done by others, right? [read post]
8 Nov 2016, 4:44 pm
Kollman, 269 Va. 569, 581 (Va.2005)) holding that actual malice was not established where defendant’s belief in the truth of the statements made was an honest conviction grounded in good faith). [read post]
25 Aug 2014, 3:06 pm
Seller's broker cross-appeals with respect to the trial court's ruling on his cross-complaint, seeking to revive his indemnification claims only if the trial court's judgment that he is not liable to buyer were to be reversed. [read post]
22 May 2009, 4:10 am
In the meantime, Mr Justice Arnold's conclusions (paragraphs 481, 482) are set out below:i) The Fourth to Tenth Defendants have infringed the Trade Marks. [read post]
3 Mar 2014, 11:20 am
In determining whether a survival action claim could be brought for building code violations, the supreme court ruled that in “limited circumstances” 93A claims are within the scope of c. 228 and may be allowed when defendant’s violate building regulations. [read post]
2 Feb 2022, 2:44 pm
California has a pure comparative fault rule, which essentially states that a plaintiff’s own negligence offsets the defendant’s liability. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 2:21 pm
That's the Burlington Northern test from 2006. [read post]
6 Dec 2013, 2:07 pm
Security Associates as the defendants. [read post]
23 Sep 2020, 11:01 am
Depending on the circumstances, a physician may not be the only defendant in a lawsuit—the hospital administration, attending residents, and medical students can also be found liable. [read post]
14 Mar 2017, 12:43 pm
In the construction context, 104(1)(b)(II) was intended to allow a general contractor’s claims against liable subcontractors to toll for the statutorily defined period. [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 10:28 am
Patry was held additionally liable for $10,000 in punitive damages.The ruling, by Justice Ronald Holmes, said: “The defendant Patry formed an intense dislike of the plaintiff and a desire for revenge for his finding against her in the arbitration, which grew and expanded beyond her properly seeking redress of a legal wrong into a vendetta to strip him of his job, professional standing, and finally to have him subjected to criminal prosecution. [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 10:39 am
The Second Circuit (Pooler, Raggi and Lynch) says for the first time that an employer may be liable for the harassment of non-employees in certain circumstances: "we will consider the extent of the employer’s control and any other legal responsibility which the employer may have with respect to the conduct of such non-employees. [read post]
2 Jan 2015, 12:34 pm
But the court denied the defendant’s jury instructions: “If you find that the employer's action ... was actually motivated by both discriminatory and non-discriminatory reasons, the employer is not liable if it can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that its legitimate reason, standing alone, would have induced it to make the same decision. [read post]
