Search for: "Plaintiff(s)"
Results 9121 - 9140
of 178,509
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Sep 2011, 8:21 am
”Under Rule 3.4(a) plaintiff’s counsel “shall not . . . obstruct another party’s access to evidence. [read post]
16 Sep 2020, 11:42 am
Effectively detailing the full constellation of problems plaintiffs suffer because of their injuries, and the compounding effect they have on a plaintiff’s life, can be critical in maximizing a damages claim. [read post]
7 Apr 2009, 3:56 am
The crux of Plaintiffs’ complaint was that Airfreight’s policy of paying its employees seven to eight days after the pay-period ended-without justification for the delay-violates the FLSA. [read post]
29 May 2008, 4:54 am
Plaintiff’s theory was that this agreement constituted a “per se market allocation” agreement in violation of the Sherman Act. [read post]
10 May 2012, 11:21 am
Plaintiff's lawyer names expert two days late. [read post]
28 Apr 2014, 1:18 pm
The court also disposed of plaintiff’s fraud claim. [read post]
17 Nov 2020, 6:08 am
Allegedly, the day after the surgery, the plaintiff’s decedent died. [read post]
5 Jan 2024, 12:50 pm
“Though use of a mark by licensees supports its strength, the use of Plaintiff’s hybrid marks throughout Florida’s 67 counties to cover services that are actually provided by both Plaintiff and Defendants weakens Plaintiff’s marks significantly. [read post]
30 Jul 2012, 12:36 am
The defendant established that it properly supervised the plaintiff, but, regardless, the plaintiff was injured by an errant shot of the shuttlecock that occurred in such a short period of time that any alleged lack of supervision was not a proximate cause of the injuries.Student note: Plaintiff's expert’s affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant was negligent… [read post]
28 Oct 2020, 1:54 pm
The defendant’s attorney contended that the law requires the court to find clear, convincing evidence that the plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages. [read post]
18 Mar 2022, 3:00 am
The court ultimately found that, since the Plaintiff’s expert’s testimony was admissible, the Plaintiff’s risk/utility theory of a designed defect survived the Motion for Summary Judgment. [read post]
8 May 2008, 5:17 am
The court’s remand order expressly states, “with respect to all claims, the Plaintiffs are barred from recovering a total amount of damages, including actual damages, punitive damages, treble damages, and statutory attorney's fees, exceeding five million dollars ($5,000,000), exclusive of interest and costs for the putative class action, and the Plaintiffs are barred from recovering a total amount of damages, including actual damages,… [read post]
5 Apr 2016, 11:21 am
Mar. 24, 2016) In this case, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order and ordered that Defendant was prohibited from obtaining the discovery sought from Plaintiff’s shareholder by the at-issue subpoenas. [read post]
15 Oct 2021, 4:00 am
The exemption is rightly viewed as an essential facet of the vaccine’s core purpose of protecting the health of patients and healthcare workers, including those who, for bona fide medical reasons, cannot be safely vaccinated. [read post]
27 Jul 2019, 1:37 pm
" DOE moved to dismiss Plaintiff's petition as untimely because the proceeding was commenced on April 28, 2017, more than four months after DOE's issued its December 9, 2016 determination. [read post]
5 Aug 2019, 4:00 am
"Accordingly, the Appellate Division ruled that Supreme Court's dismissal of Plaintiff's petition as untimely was correct, noting that DOE's determination became final and binding and the statute of limitations period began to run on December 9, 2016. [read post]
27 Jul 2019, 1:37 pm
" DOE moved to dismiss Plaintiff's petition as untimely because the proceeding was commenced on April 28, 2017, more than four months after DOE's issued its December 9, 2016 determination. [read post]
19 Dec 2018, 5:00 am
The case came before the court by way of Preliminary Objections filed by the Defendant seeking to strike the Plaintiff’s vicarious liability claim based upon the Plaintiff’s failure to identify the Defendant’s alleged agents by name. [read post]
19 Nov 2012, 9:27 am
Accordingly, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the trial court’s granting of the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. [read post]
5 Nov 2009, 4:14 am
Plaintiffs also sought additional time to respond to the Bank’s motion, in order to conduct discovery concerning the unconscionability of the class action waiver. [read post]
