Search for: "Liable Defendant(s)" Results 8881 - 8900 of 21,115
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Feb 2017, 9:33 am by sklemp
This will help to protect you from being liable for any more of your ex-spouse's spending. [read post]
21 Feb 2017, 8:26 am by Eric Goldman
Compass Restaurant * Business School Professors May Be Liable for Defamatory Blog Post–ZAGG v. [read post]
19 Feb 2017, 9:30 pm by Erwin Chemerinsky
Indeed, that DA’s office had a notorious history of not disclosing exculpatory information to defendants, as required by the Constitution. [read post]
19 Feb 2017, 7:36 am by Ad Law Defense
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is tasked with updating the list of offending chemicals – there are almost a thousand currently on the list – and once a consumer product is shown to contain one of the listed chemicals a defendant has a heavy burden to show that the amount of exposure is within a safe harbor level or that the product is manufactured in such a way which precludes exposure. [read post]
18 Feb 2017, 9:55 am by Andrew Delaney
I feel like that’s happened before . . .Hey, remember that time a criminal defendant got acquitted of a murder (well, two) but still was found liable in a wrongful death action and then had to pay and even wrote a “fictional” book about it that essentially was a tell-all about how he committed the crime? [read post]
18 Feb 2017, 6:07 am by Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner
Defendant sought judgment as a matter of law, but this motion was denied, at which point defendant appealed, arguing there was not a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the plaintiff. [read post]
17 Feb 2017, 4:00 am by Berniard Law Firm
Houston, his homeowner’s insurer Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, and the Board of Supervisors for the University of Louisiana System as defendants. [read post]
16 Feb 2017, 2:14 pm by Jane Coleman
Citing eBay and Perfect 10, the Gucci court reiterated the direct control and monitoring test, stating that [e]ven if a defendant does not seek out and intentionally induce a third-party to commit trademark infringement, it may still be held liable for the infringement if it supplied services with knowledge or by willfully shutting its eyes to the infringing conduct, while it had sufficient control over the instrumentality  used to infringe. [read post]
Initially, the case went to trial, and the jury determined that the defendant was negligent, but the defendants negligence was not the cause of her loved one’s injuries and subsequent death. [read post]
Initially, the case went to trial, and the jury determined that the defendant was negligent, but the defendants negligence was not the cause of her loved one’s injuries and subsequent death. [read post]
16 Feb 2017, 11:24 am by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP
Earlier last month, an appellate court in California issued a written opinion in a medical malpractice case upholding a lower court’s decision to grant the plaintiff a new trial after newly discovered evidence showed that the defendant may be liable for her loved one’s death. [read post]
16 Feb 2017, 9:47 am by Audrey A Millemann
  First, the defendant must “condition” the other party’s participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit on the other party’s performance of a step. [read post]
16 Feb 2017, 9:28 am by Newman, Anzalone & Newman, LLP
While the defendant driver’s not possessing a driver’s license was not conclusive proof that the rental agency was liable under the negligent entrustment theory, that lack of a license, combined with the defendants’ depositions, was enough to conclude that the plaintiff had shown the existence of a “triable issue of fact” regarding whether or not the agency was negligent in its entrustment of the car in this case. [read post]
16 Feb 2017, 8:21 am by Burton A. Padove
It’s been nearly six years since a deadly stage collapse at the Indiana State Fair killed seven concertgoers and injured 58 others in Indianapolis. [read post]
16 Feb 2017, 8:00 am by Daniel Perlman
If the minor’s misconduct involves “defacement of property of another with paint or a similar substance,” the limit of the parent or guardian’s joint liable is still $25,000. [read post]