Search for: "Liable Defendant(s)"
Results 8781 - 8800
of 21,115
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Mar 2017, 8:00 am
In this case, the taxi driver owned his cab, but was part of the association sponsored by the defendant United. [read post]
16 Mar 2017, 7:31 am
In December 2013, however, several months after Kiobel was decided, the Ninth Circuit vacated Judge Wilson’s judgment, holding that corporations could be held liable under the ATS and that the district court had erred by adopting the Second Circuit’s requirement of a showing of specific intent to commit an offense. [read post]
16 Mar 2017, 7:00 am
Dish claims, among other things, that the verdict violates Dish’s due process rights because Judge Eagles allowed the jury to impose aggregate damages, rather than allowing Dish to defend each individual claim of an improper phone call. [read post]
16 Mar 2017, 7:00 am
Dish claims, among other things, that the verdict violates Dish’s due process rights because Judge Eagles allowed the jury to impose aggregate damages, rather than allowing Dish to defend each individual claim of an improper phone call. [read post]
15 Mar 2017, 2:06 pm
Let’s be clear; these bonds are not insurance policies. [read post]
15 Mar 2017, 1:58 pm
You case will involve collecting the necessary evidence to hold liable those who were at fault. [read post]
15 Mar 2017, 12:08 pm
For example, knowing where to find certain records and how to obtain them is extremely important, including the defendant’s medical and driving records. [read post]
15 Mar 2017, 11:37 am
” In other words, a person who is civilly liable for some wrong is liable for all of the damages that his error or omission proximately caused. [read post]
15 Mar 2017, 7:38 am
(Recall that under the doctrine of “qualified immunity,” an officer is not liable for damaging conduct if the law was not “clearly established” at the time that the officer’s conduct constituted a constitutional violation.) [read post]
15 Mar 2017, 5:13 am
Plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against defendant and defendant’s employer in 2011. [read post]
15 Mar 2017, 2:46 am
In Waya, as is well known, the Supreme Court read into POCA, s 6 (by applying the rule of construction in Human Rights Act, s 3) words ameliorating the statutory obligation to impose a confiscation order in strict conformity with the terms of the Act, so that the obligation ceased (but they duty to consider confiscation was not removed) where the making of an order which was in conformity with the strict requirements of the Act would yield a disproportionate result and therefore be… [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]
14 Mar 2017, 11:54 am
The question was whether the employer was liable for the harassing conduct of the supervisor. [read post]
14 Mar 2017, 8:00 am
The defendants then moved for partial judgment on the pleadings seeking to dismiss Ferrer’s direct negligence claims against Yellow Cab. [read post]
13 Mar 2017, 9:08 pm
Under the first claim, the California couple says the defendants are “strictly liable to the Plaintiffs for harm proximately caused by the manufacture and sale of unsafe and defective food product. [read post]
13 Mar 2017, 12:54 pm
In the letter, sent to Huber by a trademark lawyer for Defendants, CMF asserts that Huber’s use of the word “Generations” in conjunction with the sale of wine violates the Lanham Act by infringing and diluting CMF’s trademark. [read post]
13 Mar 2017, 12:49 pm
A reasonable jury could have found that defendant exercised due care when he passed plaintiff, but that plaintiff had extended his foot and contacted defendant’s bicycle. [read post]
13 Mar 2017, 11:13 am
According to the well-written opinion, “a rational finder of fact could infer reasonably, we think, that [defendant’s dog] snapping at [Plaintiff’s family] amounted to the dog attempting to bite [],” Justice Keith Blackwell wrote. [read post]
13 Mar 2017, 9:51 am
The defendants could still be held liable for negligently maintaining the premises. [read post]
13 Mar 2017, 9:10 am
Hoskins had standing because “As the owner of Northeastshooters.com, Hoskins has a First Amendment right to distribute and facilitate protected speech on the site….Defendant’s takedown demand letter threatening legal action against Hoskins if he did not immediately comply and remove headednorth’s post, coupled with Hoskins’s compliance with the demand, constitutes a cognizable constitutional injury. [read post]
