Search for: "Liable Defendant(s)" Results 1601 - 1620 of 21,104
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Jan 2013, 6:09 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Thus, they were contributorily and vicariously liable. [read post]
2 Oct 2015, 11:02 am
The trial court found that the defendants had violated these statutes and rendered judgment against them.The court also concluded that Thibodeau was personally liable for the corporate defendants' violations of the Water Pollution Control Act under the responsible corporate officer doctrine, but that he could not be held personally liable under that doctrine for the corporate defendants' civil violations of the Aquifer Protection Act. [read post]
26 Jul 2016, 9:14 am by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.
The Court’s Analysis On appeal, the court agreed with the lower court’s decision to grant judgment to the defendants, finding two separate reasons why the plaintiff’s complaint failed. [read post]
25 Jun 2021, 5:00 am
Rather, the court found that the Plaintiff were required to prove additional facts beyond the shooter Defendants negligence to show that the other Co-Defendants were potentially liable. [read post]
8 Dec 2020, 5:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
Williamson Monroe County In the Plaintiff’s response, it was asserted that the tenant Defendant was generally liable as a possessor of land. [read post]
16 Jul 2019, 1:34 pm by Evan Brown (@internetcases)
As a principal of the company, the individual defendants financial interests were intertwined with the company’s. [read post]
8 Oct 2023, 1:00 pm by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano
Further, the court noted that the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the defendant hospital’s motion. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 11:47 am by Eugene Volokh
Here’s the legal background: A publisher is generally not be liable once the statute of limitations (generally a year or longer) has run since the original publication. [read post]
27 Aug 2007, 1:35 am
www.nylj.com School, Elevator Firm Not Liable Under Labor Law For Injury Caused by Defect in Elevator's Shaft Buckley, plaintiffs-appellants v. [read post]
14 Oct 2009, 12:20 am
., Oct. 8, 2009), involved a lawsuit by the father of two teenagers who alleged sexual harassment by their supervisor at a children's summer camp where they were employed. [read post]
16 Mar 2015, 5:20 pm by Stephen Bilkis
Yet, as a legal dependent, for whose support and maintenance defendant is liable (Domestic Relations Law Sec. 32(2), 33(4), having been compelled to initiate proceedings against his father, defendant's son has been placed in a position of uncertainty as to responsibility for payment of the claim of attorney's fees. [read post]
28 Oct 2019, 5:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
  The District Court noted that, “[u]nder Sparler, Plaintiff’s general release…..will not preclude Plaintiff from pursuing the present action against Defendant for UIM benefits because the executed release did not contain language unequivocally discharging Defendant from its contractual obligation to provide UIM benefits to Plaintiff. [read post]
5 Nov 2021, 10:04 am
You were injured by the defendants negligence or wrongdoing. [read post]
12 Apr 2017, 2:35 pm by Eugene Volokh
Recall that a jury had found Rolling Stone liable for $1 million and writer Sabrina Rubin Erdely liable for $2 million, based on what it concluded were false statements about University of Virginia Associate Dean Nicole Eramo in its “Rape on Campus” article; that award was being appealed, but the appeal has now been settled (as to both defendants). [read post]
25 Nov 2013, 8:55 pm by Ben Vernia
” (Question 1 was whether the defendant had violated the False Claims Act’s primary section, forbidding presenting false claims; question 2 was whether MWI had violated the “false records” section of the Act.) [read post]
18 Apr 2023, 7:52 am by Marcel Pemsel
The defendant was held liable although it did not specify the ad’s wording. [read post]
2 Dec 2014, 4:39 pm by Lefteris K. Travayiakis, Esq.
This week, the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that a defendant cannot be criminally liable if he distributes drugs within a park or playground that is NOT “public”, even if it is accessible to members of the public. [read post]