Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
It is not uncommon for summary judgments of the lower U.S. courts in complex cases to be overturned on appeal. A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, [15] meaning, without deference to the views of the trial judge, both as to the determination that there is no remaining genuine issue of material fact and that the prevailing party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
A dispositive motion may also be used to request that an indictment be dismissed or quashed, or for judgment on pleadings. At least in some jurisdictions, a corporation's motion to terminate a shareholder's derivative suit is treated as a dispositive motion. See, e.g., Dreiling v. Jain, 151 Wn.2d 900, 93 P.3d 861 (2004).
A motion to strike is a request by one party in a United States trial requesting that the presiding judge order the removal of all or part of the opposing party's pleading to the court. These motions are most commonly sought by the defendant, as to a matter contained in the plaintiff's complaint; however, they may also be asserted by plaintiffs ...
v. ) tommy p. beaudreau, et al., ) defendants, and ) cape wind associates, llc, ) intervenor. ) _____) memorandum of the conservation law foundation, the natural resources defense council, and mass audubon in support of defendants’ motions for summary judgment and in opposition to peer et al. plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their
A "motion to dismiss" asks the court to decide that a claim, even if true as stated, is not one for which the law offers a legal remedy.As an example, a claim that the defendant failed to greet the plaintiff while passing the latter on the street, insofar as no legal duty to do so may exist, would be dismissed for failure to state a valid claim: the court must assume the truth of the factual ...
Holding; To survive a motion for a summary judgment, a plaintiff seeking damages for a violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act must present evidence "that tends to exclude the possibility" that the alleged conspirators acted independently, such that the inference of a conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed ...
A draft of judgment no. 6 was sent to the parties in November 2019 and the claimants, who by that time had run out of funding, agreed a settlement of £56.75 million with the Post Office in December 2019. After legal costs of £46 million were deducted, the 555 claimants were left with less than £12 million to be divided between them. [21]
On April 30, 2007, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgment of the Federal Circuit, holding that the disputed claim 4 of the patent was obvious under the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §103, and that in "rejecting the District Court’s rulings, the Court of Appeals analyzed the issue in a narrow, rigid manner inconsistent with §103 and our precedents," referring to the Federal Circuit ...