Search for: "Test Plaintiff" Results 1321 - 1340 of 21,969
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Feb 2011, 4:30 am by Nick Farr
Recently, with a new law suit, a North Dakota woman is testing the outer limits of a manufacturer's duty to warn after severing her fingers in a commercial-grade meat grinder.The Grand Forks Herald reports that in November 2007 the plaintiff was pushing venison into a Pragotrade (the company has since changed its name to "Weston") meat grinder as she aided her husband in his meat-processing business. [read post]
23 Jan 2013, 4:14 am by Howard Friedman
 After discussing what it sees as four different Establishment Clause tests that have been announced by the Supreme Court, the court concluded that while perhaps it may later find plaintiffs' case untenable, "a fair reading of the Complaint at this stage of the proceedings leads to the conclusion that the factual allegations provided by Plaintiffs ... at least having stated a facially plausible claim." [read post]
25 Oct 2021, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
One of plaintiffs' objections was to language rejecting any religious exemption based on opposition to "specific vaccinations". [read post]
6 Oct 2014, 8:42 am
Although the plaintiff has raised a number of claims on appeal, the dispositive issue is whether the trial court found that the defendant grandparents...satisfied the standing test for a third party visitation contrary to the wishes of a fit parent as articulated by our Supreme Court in Roth v. [read post]
10 Jul 2018, 8:01 am by Allan Blutstein
  The dissenting judge asserted that the majority gave the lower court too much deference, misapplied the relevant test for determining fee awards, and permitted the CIA to evade its FOIA responsibilities. [read post]
3 Jul 2015, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
 However the court dismissed challenges brought under other parts of the 1st Amendment, the No Religious Test clause, and RFRA, dismissed The Humanist Society as a plaintiff for lack of standing and on ripeness grounds, and dismissed claims against the individual defendants. [read post]
15 Jan 2010, 5:14 am by Ray Mullman
This settlement provides that the four whistle-blower plaintiffs will collectively receive a total of approximately $1.7 million. [read post]
8 Feb 2007, 8:38 am
They are charging Smith and TrimSpa for deceptive business practices when marketing the diet pills as effective, safe, and a fast way to lose wait—which the three plaintiffs did not. [read post]
17 Oct 2006, 12:06 pm
The putative class plaintiff has now appealed, arguing that prudential standing tests are only appropriate when considering whether to expand Lanham Act standing beyond direct competitors; since Burger King is a direct competitor of McDonald's, standing to bring a false advertising claim is appropriate.Plaintiff's appeal brief refers to that very post, among other (ahem) authorities. [read post]
22 Feb 2017, 6:18 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
The subjective test that no longer applies for pre-trial detainees had regularly killed off many cases where the plaintiffs could not prove the guards intended to watch them suffer.Finally, the Court of Appeals takes the trial judge to task for ignoring part of the record in finding the plaintiffs did not suffer badly enough. [read post]
4 Nov 2014, 7:46 pm by Joe Mullin
The effort was powered by the ACLU and Public Patent Foundation, who gathered a group of plaintiffs who were paying high prices for the patented gene tests on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. [read post]
9 Apr 2011, 2:03 am
Bd. of Lafayette Parish, 148 F.3d 559, 564 (5th Cir. 1998) (plaintiff had “notice that his position as a custodian was specifically designated as safety sensitive and that he would be subject to random testing. ... [read post]
13 Jul 2019, 3:08 pm by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano
Specifically, the defendants alleged that the plaintiff first argued that the defendants were negligent in failing to perform genetic testing regardless of the mother’s blood test results. [read post]
22 Nov 2010, 5:02 am
Barr objected to the presence of plaintiff's counsel or any other third party observer during the standardized testing portion of the evaluation. [read post]