Search for: "Plaintiff(s)"
Results 7901 - 7920
of 178,503
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Aug 2013, 8:40 am
On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court (1) improperly granted the town’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s action on the ground of mootness, (2) improperly failed to award him punitive damages for the town’s conduct in demolishing the mill while his action was pending, and (3) violated his due process rights by denying his ex parte motion for a temporary injunction to halt the demolition of the mill. [read post]
29 May 2015, 7:01 am
The court denied plaintiff's motion to strike the 3,676 page report of defendant's invalidity expert as too long. [read post]
2 Dec 2022, 4:00 am
The court described plaintiffs' claims, saying in part:In their view, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Roe v. [read post]
28 May 2015, 7:43 am
The court granted in part defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law as to plaintiff's abandoned claims. [read post]
20 Feb 2018, 7:23 am
§ 285 because plaintiff's litigation positions and tactics were unreasonable. [read post]
22 Jun 2020, 5:00 am
The Defendants also asserted that the Plaintiff’s claims failed due to the failure of the Plaintiff to have standing to bring the claim and due to the Plaintiff’s failure to add the Vatican as an indispensable party.In the end, the Court denied all of the demurrers asserted and also found that the Plaintiff had standing to pursue the claim.The Court also held that the Vatican was not an indispensable party that was required to be… [read post]
16 Jan 2019, 5:00 am
.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint in a bad faith claim.The court found that the Plaintiff adequately pled a statutory bad faith claim in this UIM case based upon allegations of improper claims handling. [read post]
26 Apr 2017, 7:24 am
§ 285 because plaintiffs' infringement claim against defendant's operative ANDA and plaintiff's claim for a declaration of infringement by possible future products were baseless. [read post]
16 Apr 2019, 4:00 am
The Plaintiffs appealed.The Appellate Division said it agreed with the lower court's ruling, explaining:1. [read post]
16 Apr 2019, 4:00 am
The Plaintiffs appealed.The Appellate Division said it agreed with the lower court's ruling, explaining:1. [read post]
16 Nov 2010, 10:20 am
This matter was before the Court on defendant’s Objection to Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order Regarding the Location of an Opt-In Plaintiff Deposition. [read post]
19 Mar 2015, 8:08 am
Meyers sued the Collinsville Area Recreation District and Collinsville Extreme Club last year after she was injured on her way to the restroom at one of her daughter’s fast-pitch softball games. [read post]
16 Feb 2016, 5:00 am
The court also went on to note additional defects with respect to the Plaintiff’s non-compliance with Pa. [read post]
8 Dec 2020, 11:02 am
§1983 action, Plaintiffs — three individuals who protest against abortion — challenge Norman, Oklahoma’s disturbing-the-peace ordinance, on its face and as the City has applied it to them. [read post]
19 Apr 2017, 8:58 am
The court additionally rejected the plaintiff’s request for certification of the issue to the Louisiana Supreme Court. [read post]
23 Aug 2021, 8:21 am
Further, they claimed that the plaintiffs’ complaint was untimely under the state’s “discovery rule. [read post]
17 Dec 2019, 7:48 am
During the project, Defendant hired two of the Plaintiff’s employees who were subject to Plaintiff’s non-compete and non-disclosure agreements. [read post]
22 Jul 2022, 5:00 am
.), the trial court granted a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to a Plaintiff’s medical malpractice Complaint on the basis that the Plaintiff failed to effectuate proper service on that particular Defendant. [read post]
6 May 2014, 5:39 am
The plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that the defendant’s criteria for promoting police officers to investigative positions created a disparate impact on those candidates over the age of 40, which violated California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and other laws. [read post]
8 Feb 2016, 5:00 am
.), Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick denied a Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment under a rationale, in part, that the Plaintiff was not entitled to a spoliation inference from a Defendant’s failure to preserve store surveillance video tapes. [read post]
