Search for: "Plaintiff(s)"
Results 9781 - 9800
of 178,515
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 May 2007, 11:00 am
Bank National Association (9th Cir. 2007) 479 F.3d 994, slip op. at 10, and remanded a case back to state court, finding thatWhere, as here, there is no evidence of bad faith on the part of the plaintiff, defendant must not only contradict the plaintiff's own assessment of damages, but must overcome the presumption against federal jurisdiction by showing that plaintiff is legally certain to recover at least five million dollars. [read post]
20 Nov 2012, 9:29 am
And those treater affidavits were the final blow to plaintiff’s claims because they establish that(1) there was no alternative treatment to the immediate extraction of [plaintiff’s] tooth in June 2001; and (2) even if [plaintiff’s treater] had known in June 2001 of an association between Aredia/Zometa and ONJ, he still would have extracted [plaintiff’s] tooth.Id. at *16. [read post]
27 Sep 2017, 4:43 am
In a recent Texas car accident case, an on-duty police officer rear-ended the plaintiff’s van. [read post]
4 Sep 2024, 1:01 pm
Section 1983 due process claim, on the grounds that Plaintiff’s advisor had improperly touched Plaintiff. [read post]
9 Mar 2015, 6:03 am
” Marley’s children own plaintiff Hope Road, formed to exploit Marley’s image; plaintiff Zion is Hope Road’s exclusive licensee for t-shirts and other merchandise. [read post]
11 Aug 2009, 9:42 am
Rush University Medical Center, No. 08-1966 (7/24/09) affirmed that the district court not err in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendants tortiously interfered with plaintiff's expectation of future employment by providing potential employer with false and petty information about plaintiff's reputation. [read post]
28 May 2014, 9:22 am
In separate lawsuits, plaintiffs alleged Facebook and Zynga violated the Stored Communications Act (in Zynga’s case, also the Wiretap Act). [read post]
12 Oct 2022, 12:55 pm
Plaintiffs cannot escape an arbitrator’s adverse decision by having the circuit court case that prompted the arbitration dismissed, Maryland’s second highest court ruled. [read post]
22 Aug 2024, 5:20 am
From the plaintiff’s request: Although the requested injunctive relief may “require additional efforts” from Secretary Kemp… Continue reading The post Federal court explains why there’s no reason to miss Georgia’s election certification deadline appeared first on Election Law Blog. [read post]
8 Mar 2023, 4:08 am
If a plaintiff waits too long to file their claim, the claim may be dismissed in whole or in part by the court, regardless of the quality of the plaintiff’s evidence or the severity of the damages caused by the defendant’s willful or negligent actions. [read post]
3 Nov 2022, 5:01 am
News – Best Lawyers ® “Best Law Firms” a Tier 1 Firm in New York City for: PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION – PLAINTIFF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LITIGATION -PLAINTIFF Continue reading → [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 1:59 pm
In a litigated case, there are at least four points of view about settlement: the points of view of the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s lawyer, the defendant and the defendant’s lawyer. [read post]
16 Jun 2015, 10:24 am
Symczyk, 133 S. [read post]
29 Nov 2021, 4:40 pm
Plaintiff’s federal claims were based on the restrictions set forth in 47 U.S.C. [read post]
18 Aug 2019, 5:51 am
The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion, and he appealed. [read post]
18 Jul 2007, 6:00 am
Judge William Alsup denied GM's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' CLRA and UCL claims. [read post]
16 Jun 2015, 8:34 am
Thus, for this reason alone, Plaintiff’s action is subject to dismissal. [read post]
17 Aug 2006, 2:23 pm
Aug. 15, 2006) The Ninth Circuit upheld the Eastern District of California’s dismissal at summary judgment of Plaintiffs’ claims under California’s Unruh Act and... [read post]
21 Nov 2011, 3:00 am
Here is the plaintiff's complaint. [read post]
10 Jan 2015, 12:08 pm
., January 6, 2015), the Court granted Plaintiff Intellectual Ventures I LLC’s (“IV”) motion in limine seeking to preclude argument and evidence disparaging IV’s business model and practices to the extent that Defendant Symantec Corporation (“Symantec”) may not refer to IV as a “patent troll” during trial. [read post]
