The First Defendant‚ Second Defendant and Third Defendant‚ collectively as the ‘Defendants’‚ refer to the 29th of March 2017 statement of claim and say: Summary 1. The Plaintiffs describe paragraphs 1 to 7 of their 29th of March 2017 statement of claim as being a summary of their case. 2. In the paragraphs that follow 1 to 7 they then set their substantive allegations. 3. As the Defendants respond below to each and all of those allegations‚ there appears to be no requirement for them to plead
Premium Pleading Complaint Plaintiff
FORTUNATO F. HALILI‚ defendant-appellant. Tañada‚ Pelaez & Teehankee for defendant and appellant. Gibbs‚ Gibbs‚ Chuidian & Quasha for plaintiff and appellant. LABRADOR‚ J.: On November 29‚ 1947‚ the plaintiff entered on a written agreement‚ Exhibit A‚ with the defendant‚ the most important provisions of which are (1) that they shall organize a partnership for the bottling and distribution of Mision soft drinks‚ plaintiff to act as industrial partner or manager‚ and the defendant as a capitalist‚
Premium Plaintiff Complaint Defendant
RAUL GERONIMO and ANNA GERONIMO Plaintiff-Appellee‚ CIVIL CASE NO. 190211 -versus - PETER PASCUAL Defendant-Appellant‚ x-----------------------------------x MEMORANDUM Defendant-appellant‚ Peter Pascual‚ through counsel‚ in compliance with the Honorable Court’s order‚respectfully submits this Memorandum Prefatory Statement Plaintiff-appellee RAUL GERONIMO and ANNA GERONIMO
Premium Contract 2009
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. Therefore‚ the motion for preliminary injunction was denied in favor of the defendants. Facts: The defendants‚ upon being hired by
Premium Legal terms Defendant Plaintiff
: Defendants. : August 24‚ 2013 COMPLAINT COUNT ONE – NEGLIGENCE (OD Family Campground) 1. The Plaintiff‚ Shayla Smith a minor child by and through Mary Smith N/O/F‚ (Plaintiff)‚ is a resident of New Hartford‚ Connecticut. 2. Upon information and belief‚ Defendant‚ Owen and Dolly Jones Operate the OD Family Campground. 3. On or about August 16‚ 2012‚ Shayla Smith sustained an Injury while jumping into the pool at OD Family Campground. 4. The Defendant knew or
Premium Complaint Swimming pool Plaintiff
Betty Louis 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
Premium Tort Plaintiff Contract
to providing the defendant a copy. Second‚ the party must show a substantial need for the document in preparation for the case. It could be argued there is a substantial need. Scott’s proof chart lays out the events that occurred and evidence available. It would be extremely helpful for the plaintiff to obtain this information to successfully defend themselves. Lastly‚ the party must be unable to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means without undue hardship. The defendant can obtain this
Premium F. Scott Fitzgerald Plaintiff The Great Gatsby
Kato v. Briney‚ 183 N.W. 2d 657 (Iowa 1971) Facts Defendant Briney inherited a farm house which remained unoccupied for approximately ten years. During that period there were multiple housebreaking occurrences which caused damage to the property. Defendant and her husband were annoyed by the constant vandalism and set up a 20 gauge spring 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
Premium Jury Law Property
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 and sustained injuries and damages. The trial court entered judgment for defendant.
Premium Legal terms Plaintiff Tort
occupation of premises. It is therefore related to nuisance‚ Rylands v Fletcher‚ breach of statutory duty and basic negligence. Occupier’s liability covers liability for damage (usually personal injury) which occurs to entrants on to the premises of the defendant. In the Commonwealth Caribbean‚ Barbados and Jamaica have enacted statutes substantially similar to the English Occupiers Liability Act 1957. Barbados: Occupiers Liability Act‚ Cap. 208 Jamaica: Occupiers Liability Act 1969 (Vol. Xiii‚ Laws of Jamaica)
Premium Tort law Common law Tort