Search for: "Plaintiff(s) v. Defendant(s)"
Results 61 - 80
of 69,612
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 May 2024, 8:05 pm
In arriving at that decision, the Court of Appeals considered the four factors stated above and noted, inter alia, that (1) there was no indication that the plaintiff’s tardiness was deliberate or habitual; (2) the plaintiff’s tardiness was minimal; (3) the plaintiff’s explanation for being late, although not compelling, was not outlandish; and (4) there was no indication of prejudice to the defendants. [read post]
28 May 2024, 8:05 pm
In arriving at that decision, the Court of Appeals considered the four factors stated above and noted, inter alia, that (1) there was no indication that the plaintiff’s tardiness was deliberate or habitual; (2) the plaintiff’s tardiness was minimal; (3) the plaintiff’s explanation for being late, although not compelling, was not outlandish; and (4) there was no indication of prejudice to the defendants. [read post]
28 May 2024, 10:05 am
Gamino v. [read post]
28 May 2024, 10:03 am
(2022) (overruling the constitutional right to abortion); and last week's ruling in Alexander v. [read post]
28 May 2024, 8:46 am
Sebastian Holdings, Inc. (346 Conn. 564); whether Appellate Court incorrectly determined that plaintiff's claims against defendants were barred by litigation privilege). [read post]
28 May 2024, 7:46 am
Superior Court in McGee v. [read post]
28 May 2024, 6:00 am
Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that they did not owe a special duty of care to the plaintiff (see Koyko v City of New York, 189 AD3d at 812; Morgan-Word v New York City Dept. of Educ., 161 AD3d at 1068; Destefano v City of New York, 149 AD3d at 698). [read post]
28 May 2024, 6:00 am
Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that they did not owe a special duty of care to the plaintiff (see Koyko v City of New York, 189 AD3d at 812; Morgan-Word v New York City Dept. of Educ., 161 AD3d at 1068; Destefano v City of New York, 149 AD3d at 698). [read post]
28 May 2024, 6:00 am
Conte v. [read post]
28 May 2024, 5:00 am
In the case of C.M. v. [read post]
27 May 2024, 11:00 pm
# # #DECISIONM. v. [read post]
27 May 2024, 10:48 am
His comments risked leading the jury to improperly defer to his opinion on the plaintiff’s credibility, which is the jury’s responsibility to assess.Legal Precedents and ImplicationsThe decision in Moustakis v. [read post]
27 May 2024, 5:00 am
P., Inc. v P.C.F., Inc. [read post]
27 May 2024, 2:50 am
The Court also denied the bank’s request to dismiss our Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief under California’s Unfair Competition Law. [read post]
26 May 2024, 8:05 am
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. [read post]
25 May 2024, 4:53 pm
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in Lear Siegler, Inc. v. [read post]
24 May 2024, 11:03 am
CPU Litigation, Bledsoe et al v. [read post]
24 May 2024, 8:55 am
The defendant’s insurance carrier offered to settle the case for $25,000 and sent the plaintiff’s lawyer a release agreement. [read post]
24 May 2024, 7:49 am
Just last month, the Supreme Court granted Idaho’s request for a partial stay of a lower-court injunction, thus permitting the state’s ban on gender-affirming care to go into effect until the court rules on any cert petition – although the injunction still remained in force as to the plaintiffs in that case, thus permitting the plaintiffs there to receive treatment. [read post]
24 May 2024, 3:58 am
The basis for the plaintiff’s allegations was the defendant’s conduct in the 2011 action, consisting of, inter alia, an alleged deceitful representation by the defendant in response to the plaintiff’s discovery demands, wherein the defendant represented that there were no notes taken by Town employees related to the plaintiff’s alleged violations of the Town Code, and the… [read post]
