Search for: "Plaintiff(s)"
Results 9881 - 9900
of 178,515
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Oct 2020, 5:01 am
Thus, Judge Ross explained, truth is a defense and because the plaintiff’s statement was true, the defendant had no claim. [read post]
14 Aug 2017, 3:30 am
Hired by the employer’s CEO, the plaintiff was fired about a year later by the same CEO. [read post]
7 Jun 2011, 9:12 pm
Plaintiff Basel Action Network and defendant International Association of Electronics Recyclers (IAER) both provide certified electronics recycling programs. [read post]
21 Jun 2023, 11:00 pm
But after she divorced her husband, a neuroscientist, who also had been invited to the Institute, Maria’s invitation was retracted.Columbia claimed that Maria’s involvement was tied to a collaborative working relationship with her spouse, and that it was understood that she would have a “limited physical presence. [read post]
2 Dec 2015, 6:41 am
The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment that plaintiff's search refinement patent was invalid for lack of patentable subject matter and rejected plaintiff's argument that its patent was valid because a nearly identical continuation patent had just been issued by the PTO. [read post]
5 Jun 2019, 4:00 am
Supreme Court granted the appointing authority's [Employer] motion to dismiss a CPLR Article 78 petition filed by an applicant [Plaintiff] for appointment as a police officer seeking to annul the Employer's decision not to certify Plaintiff for appointment dismissed the proceeding. [read post]
5 Jun 2019, 4:00 am
Supreme Court granted the appointing authority's [Employer] motion to dismiss a CPLR Article 78 petition filed by an applicant [Plaintiff] for appointment as a police officer seeking to annul the Employer's decision not to certify Plaintiff for appointment dismissed the proceeding. [read post]
4 Jun 2021, 4:00 am
Although Defendant's acts are consumer-oriented*, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Defendant's acts were not materially misleading. [read post]
6 May 2015, 6:00 am
The Federal Magistrate Judge denied a Defendant's motion to compel unfettered and complete access of the Plaintiff's profile page along with a disclosure of the Plaintiff's user name and password.The case arose out of claims that the Defendant's dog treats had caused a fatal illness in the Plaintiff's dog.The defense asserted that it had made a predicate showing allowing it access to the private… [read post]
20 Dec 2016, 6:49 am
The court granted plaintiff's motion to reconsider its award of attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
5 Jun 2019, 4:00 am
Supreme Court granted the appointing authority's [Employer] motion to dismiss a CPLR Article 78 petition filed by an applicant [Plaintiff] for appointment as a police officer seeking to annul the Employer's decision not to certify Plaintiff for appointment dismissed the proceeding. [read post]
4 Jun 2021, 4:00 am
Although Defendant's acts are consumer-oriented*, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Defendant's acts were not materially misleading. [read post]
5 Jun 2019, 4:00 am
Supreme Court granted the appointing authority's [Employer] motion to dismiss a CPLR Article 78 petition filed by an applicant [Plaintiff] for appointment as a police officer seeking to annul the Employer's decision not to certify Plaintiff for appointment dismissed the proceeding. [read post]
1 Aug 2023, 6:00 am
Supreme Court granted DOE's motion and Plaintiffs appealed the court's decision. [read post]
1 Aug 2023, 6:00 am
Supreme Court granted DOE's motion and Plaintiffs appealed the court's decision. [read post]
4 Jun 2021, 4:00 am
Although Defendant's acts are consumer-oriented*, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Defendant's acts were not materially misleading. [read post]
4 Jun 2021, 4:00 am
Although Defendant's acts are consumer-oriented*, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Defendant's acts were not materially misleading. [read post]
23 Jun 2023, 2:54 am
With regards to the Plaintiff’s claim of spoliation relative to any video surveillance of the incident, the court found that the deletion of video surveillance footage under the Defendant’s standard policy did not constitute spoliation because there was no evidence presented to suggest that the footage that was deleted was relevant in determining the case of the Plaintiff’s fall. [read post]
9 Dec 2013, 1:20 pm
That’s usually a good start for a plaintiff’s story, a very good one. [read post]
26 Oct 2020, 4:00 am
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in support of the debt collector’s position that it did not violate the FDCPA by sending the plaintiff a letter that included an itemization of the plaintiff’s debt that indicated “$0.00” was owed in interest and collection fees. [read post]
