Search for: "Test Plaintiff"
Results 8081 - 8100
of 21,967
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Mar 2017, 11:10 am
The irony of the Zoloft case and many other litigations was that the defense was not using significance testing in the way that Rothman had criticized; rather the plaintiffs were over-endorsing statistical significance that was nominal, plagued by multi-testing, and inconsistent. [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 2:59 pm
Regarding the latter, the Plaintiffs cried that Myriad sued, threatened to sue, or demanded license agreements from every known institution offering BRCA clinical testing, including university labs directed by plaintiffs Kazazian, Ganguly, and Ostrer. [read post]
15 May 2015, 9:50 am
The most common iteration of the test shows that a substantial portion of test-takers implicitly associate faces of Caucasians with good things, and faces of African Americans with bad things. [read post]
29 May 2017, 12:46 pm
" When inquired about the liability test, the court stated it had previously been in favor of a plaintiff who "alleged she developed mesothelioma as a result of laundering her husband's asbestos-laden work clothes over a forty-year period". [read post]
22 Nov 2016, 6:52 pm
In a footnote, the court was careful to state it was not ruling on the legality of the salary-level test itself—but only that the DOL was not authorized to utilize the salary-level test as amended under the final rule. [read post]
3 Apr 2020, 8:01 am
Plaintiffs further contend that the testing of the blood spots reveals "highly personal and deeply private genetic/medical information" and is a second violation of the Fourth Amendment. [read post]
2 Oct 2022, 7:23 am
The plaintiff in the case, Austin Casey III, bought a used vehicle from the defendant, Rides Unlimited Chicago, Inc. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 6:51 pm
Defendants do not explicitly address Plaintiffs’ theory of harm to their privacy interests anywhere in their Proposed Conclusions of Law. [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 12:23 pm
In their Motions to Remand, Plaintiffs argued that: (1) the removal was not timely because Defendants had notice of the grounds alleged in the removal notice more than thirty days before the cases were removed, (2) Defendants could not satisfy the test for substantial federal question jurisdiction set forth by the United States Supreme Court, and (3) the Defendants could not satisfy the second, third, and fourth requirements of the jurisdictional test for “Federal… [read post]
8 May 2007, 5:44 am
Tr. at 35 (Perko Test.); Tr. at 60 (Byers Test.). [read post]
1 Jun 2021, 9:04 am
Therefore, it reviewed the agreement under the “rule of reason,” test included in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, which requires that the restraint be no greater than necessary to protect the plaintiff’s legitimate business interest and that the plaintiff’s need not be outweighed by the hardship to the defendant and the likely injury to the public. [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 12:23 pm
In their Motions to Remand, Plaintiffs argued that: (1) the removal was not timely because Defendants had notice of the grounds alleged in the removal notice more than thirty days before the cases were removed, (2) Defendants could not satisfy the test for substantial federal question jurisdiction set forth by the United States Supreme Court, and (3) the Defendants could not satisfy the second, third, and fourth requirements of the jurisdictional test for “Federal… [read post]
26 Mar 2011, 10:04 pm
No blood test to determine the plaintiff’s PSA level was done at that time and no rectal examination was performed. [read post]
2 Sep 2017, 10:25 pm
If there is a similar device already on the market, and there often is, the company may be able to skip certain testing and then go back and do post-market testing. [read post]
16 Oct 2016, 6:46 pm
The Court of Appeal affirmed this test, but held that he erred in finding that the plaintiffs failed to reasonably rely on the misrepresentations. [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 10:26 am
Medical monitoring is almost always seen as a potential class action claim, for several reasons: • First, the individual damages associated with periodic testing of a so-far healthy plaintiff may not be all that financially attractive to plaintiff attorneys. [read post]
23 May 2011, 4:30 am
Plaintiff had not even had the product tested to back up any allegation she may have had that the particular tube of the rub cream was stronger or weaker than the standard formula. [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 12:23 pm
In their Motions to Remand, Plaintiffs argued that: (1) the removal was not timely because Defendants had notice of the grounds alleged in the removal notice more than thirty days before the cases were removed, (2) Defendants could not satisfy the test for substantial federal question jurisdiction set forth by the United States Supreme Court, and (3) the Defendants could not satisfy the second, third, and fourth requirements of the jurisdictional test for “Federal… [read post]
1 Jul 2011, 8:23 am
The court appeared to hold that monetary harm could not be calculated against Plaintiff. [read post]
31 Jan 2012, 7:10 am
Despite this finding the Court made the following observation about this little tested area of law: [71] In addition, counsel submits that Mr. [read post]
