Citation: Nasc Services‚ Inc v. Jervis 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40502 (U.S. Dist. Ct. D. N.J. 2008) Parties: * Plaintiff – Nasc Services and Russell * Defendant – Jervis‚ Moses‚ Jones‚ Barrow‚ Moffett‚ and Nee * Appellant – N/A * Appellee– N/A History: The plaintiff motioned against the defendants under the notion that they violated a covenant in their employee contracts. If the defendants were to be found guilty then the consequences would be an oppressive and unfair scenario
Premium Legal terms Defendant Plaintiff
1.FACTS Plaintiff alleged that as she started to sit down in a wood and canvas lawn chair‚ defendant‚ a child under six years old‚ deliberately pulled it out from under her. The trial court found that defendant was attempting to move the chair toward plaintiff to aid her in sitting down in the chair and that‚ due to defendant’s small size and lack of dexterity‚ he was unable to get the lawn chair under plaintiff in time to prevent her from falling to the ground. Plaintiff fell to the ground
Premium Legal terms Plaintiff Tort
before getting to trial of which some plaintiffs are not patient enough to wait for‚ some are dropped because in the process of litigation and battling the claims out‚ they discover some facts or pivotal information that “lowers their assessment of the value of their case or claims”. The article also found that a case can be dropped due to reasons that should have been foreseen by the plaintiff and his attorney. Thorough investigations should be made by a plaintiff and his attorney before filling a lawsuit
Premium Medical malpractice Lawsuit Plaintiff
Accuhealth‚ when the plaintiff suffered anaphylactic shock‚ her mother called 911. Two EMTs arrived and the mother requested that her daughter be brought to a nearby hospital immediately (the hospital was only 4 minutes away). However‚ the EMTs advised the mother that she should wait for an Advanced Life Support ambulance; the plaintiff’s mother did wait‚ but the ALS ambulance did not arrive until 20 minutes later; the plaintiff survived‚ but suffered significant brain damage. The plaintiff claimed that
Premium Emergency medical services New York City Plaintiff
KING‚ ) ) Plaintiff. ) ) Civil Action No. 11-CIV-012345 ) v. ) ) ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES‚ INC. ) Judge Julie James ) Defendant. ) ___________________________ _________) REQUESTS FOR PRODCUTION OF DOCUMENTS To: Plaintiff Justin King and his attorney‚ Jane Doe‚ 123 Main Street‚ Chicago‚ IL 60601 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure‚ the Defendant requests the Plaintiff to produce and permit
Premium Plaintiff John Smith Lawsuit
shotgun trap in one of the bedrooms which was set to shoot the legs of a trespasser entering the room. Plaintiff Katko and his accomplice McDonough entered the house by removing a board that was covering a window to search for bottles and jars. When Plaintiff entered the bedroom‚ the rigged shot gun fired. Plaintiff was struck by the gunfire and much of his right leg and tibia was blown away. Plaintiff was assisted by his accomplice to a vehicle and was taken to the hospital which resulted in a 40-day
Premium Jury Law Property
Patty Bean ‚ Plaintiff v. David Bean ‚ Defendant 1. Plaintiff‚ who resides at 123 West Golf Road‚ Boston‚ MA. 12345 was lawfully married to the Defendant who now resides at 456 East Lark Street‚ Boston‚ MA. 12345. 2. The parties were married at Boston‚ Massachusetts on April 5‚ 2003 and last lived together at 123 West Golf Road‚ Boston‚ MA. on November 4‚ 2013. A copy of the marriage license is attached hereto. 3. The minor child(ren)
Premium Marriage Law Judgment
CRM1246 Professor Lawrence Johnston 17 September 2014 Macomber v. Dillman Facts: On April 1984‚ Plaintiffs‚ Roxanne and Steven filed a complaint against defendants‚ Carter F. Dillman and Webster Hospital Association. Alleging‚ amongst other things the defendant was negligent‚ careless‚ and failed to comply with the standard of care during a medical practice for permanent sterilization. The Plaintiff wanted damages because she was not permanently sterilized and was able to conceived a healthy child
Premium Tort Plaintiff Contract
whether the coffee was defective due to the heat at which it was served and whether an adequate warning existed. Because the alleged failure to warn involved a product‚ not premises‚ summary judgment was properly granted as to premises liability. Plaintiffs’ claims of emotional damage were inadequate to support their claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. 4. According to the case‚ why was this not a case of negligent infliction of
Premium Product liability Plaintiff Negligence
McFarland‚ T Lang and W Keates. The plaintiffs carried on the business of receiving and disposing of frozen meat from abroad. They alleged that the three defendants carried on business in Melbourne as partners under the names ‘T McFarland & Co’ and on occasions ‘McFarland‚ Lang and Keates’. Before the action commenced‚ J McFarland and W Keates became insolvent and the action proceeded against their assignees and Lang. At the trial‚ judgment was given for the plaintiff and Lang appealed to the High Court
Premium Plaintiff Complaint Pleading