Search for: "P Plaintiff" Results 1841 - 1860 of 13,770
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Dec 2012, 9:25 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
Plaintiff's civil rights lawsuit against Orange County corrections officers was dismissed. [read post]
P. 26, an analysis under the Pennypack factors did not require striking the references. [read post]
7 Feb 2019, 8:27 am by Eugene Volokh
[T]he sight of [the] photograph startled, shocked and overwhelmed [p ]laintiff causing her to panic and become fearful, which fright, fear and anxiety caused her to panic and lose her balance on the steps resulting in her falling down the steps to the bottom thereof .... [read post]
27 Jul 2020, 5:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
 Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.I send thanks to Attorney John P. [read post]
20 May 2020, 7:08 am by Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
"  See Op. at p. 5.Anyone wishing to review this case may click this LINK.I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg, PA law firm of Schmidt Kramer for bringing this case to my attention. [read post]
30 Jun 2021, 5:00 am
”  See Op. at p. 4.The court noted that, whereas here, the allegations in the Plaintiff’s Complaint are material, relevant, and supportive of the Plaintiff’s causes of action and where a Defendant cannot affirmatively show prejudice by the inclusion of the allegations, the allegations should not be stricken as scandalous or impertinent. [read post]
22 Nov 2023, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
The court responded:[P]laintiffs point to nothing in their complaint or the health order itself to support a reasonable inference that the City of Chicago would not provide a religious exemption or that religious exemptions were impossible to receive. [read post]
21 Sep 2016, 7:11 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Plaintiff would be correct if the Film were just about relationships. [read post]
1 Sep 2017, 5:08 am
For §1983 claims, plaintiffs can just go straight to court. [read post]
25 Apr 2017, 11:31 am
" (Flaherty, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 650, italics added.) [read post]
12 Nov 2012, 12:19 am by Kevin LaCroix
(In a November 2, 2012 order (here), California Superior Court Judge James P. [read post]
26 Jul 2009, 1:04 pm
The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's Labor Law § §240(1) and 241(6) claims on the ground that these construction worker safety statutes do not apply on the grounds that (1) the statutes do not apply to accidents that occur on an Indian reservation, (2) since the tribe is the title owner of the land, the individual and corporate defendants are not "owners" within the meaning of the Labor Law statutes, (3) the plaintiff was engaged… [read post]