Search for: "Plaintiff(s)" Results 1801 - 1820 of 178,347
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Apr 2020, 5:16 pm by John C. Manoog III
For instance, if the bite or attack came as a result of the plaintiff provoking the animal in some manner, the owner may not be liable for the plaintiffs injuries. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 9:19 am by Marty Schwimmer
Plaintiff 800-GET-THIN was subject of negative article in LA Times and sues under false advertising prong. [read post]
17 May 2017, 1:31 pm by Christopher Simon
In order for a plaintiffs amended complaints to survive, they must relate back to the initial filing. [read post]
29 Jan 2009, 9:00 am
  Additionally, they argued CFDs made the lead plaintiff an atypical plaintiff with special defenses. [read post]
14 May 2019, 10:00 am by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.
However, when a case arises in a quasi-medical setting, defendants routinely try to categorize a plaintiffs claim as a medical malpractice claim. [read post]
21 Mar 2022, 1:58 pm by Ambrose Stearns, Jr.
Thomas, the insurer originally paid approximately $500 in medical bills for the Plaintiffs treatment.[17] The insurer then requested additional medical documentation for the Plaintiffs claim. [read post]
13 Mar 2012, 7:15 pm by A. Brian Albritton
"White's firm, Nolan & Auerbach, only does FCA cases on behalf of relators. [read post]
12 Dec 2022, 6:00 am by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.
App Dec. 7, 2022), plaintiff filed this negligence suit against defendant and defendant’s employer based on a motor vehicle accident. [read post]
30 Jun 2020, 6:43 pm by Foran & Foran, P.A.
 In a June 17, 2020 case, the Court of Special Appeals considered whether the plaintiffs delay in filing a medical malpractice complaint against a nursing home was grounds for dismissal. [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 2:48 pm by Rushford & Bonotto, LLP
Selna, granted Toyota's motion to dismiss lawsuits filed by 41 plaintiffs from various countries in Asia and Europe, as well as Australia and Central America. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 9:05 am by Max Kennerly, Esq.
Why is the asbestos victim who obtains information from a plaintiffs’ firm’s website any different from the unsuspecting reader of one of the pro-business newspapers the Chamber finances in plaintiffs-friendly jurisdictions? [read post]
3 Jan 2017, 8:00 am by Robert Kreisman
The plaintiff argued that under the Petrillo doctrine, ex parte communications are barred between plaintiffs treating podiatrist and defense counsel, in order to preserve the patient’s trust and confidence in her podiatrist, as well as to honor the podiatrist’s duty as a fiduciary to refrain from helping the patient’s legal adversary. [read post]
3 Jan 2017, 8:00 am by Robert Kreisman
The plaintiff argued that under the Petrillo doctrine, ex parte communications are barred between plaintiffs treating podiatrist and defense counsel, in order to preserve the patient’s trust and confidence in her podiatrist, as well as to honor the podiatrist’s duty as a fiduciary to refrain from helping the patient’s legal adversary. [read post]
5 Jan 2009, 4:30 am
Judge Barbour found that there were a few grains of sand left in the plaintiff’s hourglass, and granted the plaintiffs until October 3, 2008 to amend their Complaint to cure the jurisdictional defect regarding the amount in controversy. [read post]
13 May 2022, 4:53 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
., LLC v Poppel  2022 NY Slip Op 02947 Decided on May 03, 2022 Appellate Division, First Department is a case in which Plaintiffs affidavit was prominently relied upon by the Court in determining that there was  scheme in place rather than an error of judgment. [read post]
23 Feb 2021, 1:22 pm by Venkat Balasubramani
Techdirt covers the Seventh Circuit’s ruling in the Clearview case where plaintiffs successfully persuaded the court to let them remain in state court based on a finding that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. [read post]
24 May 2010, 11:13 am by M. Brandon Smith
After 2 weeks of testimony by both the Plaintiff and the Defense, the jury's verdict showed that the Yamaha Rhino was defective in its design. [read post]
16 Jun 2009, 10:43 am
The gist of the Court's ruling was the reconciliation of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA") with plaintiff's claims under state law (that is, the legal doctrine of preemption). [read post]