On the heels of the Ruth settlement was the decision by a Texas trial court in September 2005 to grant the plaintiff
a new trial in Presler vs.
The company's counsel argued that precedent in mixed motive cases required "direct evidence" of discrimination, such as writings or decision-makers' testimony, that said the plaintiff
was fired because of her gender.
Further, a plaintiff
bringing a medical malpractice claim against a health care provider under the theory of vicarious liability (such as a claim against a doctor's employer) must file a certificate of merit as to each of the other licensed professionals, whether or not they are named defendants in the action.
However, once the case is settled, the plaintiff
could be in jeopardy of losing even more money based on the compounded interest rate, he said.
Judge Kram also decided the plaintiffs
had failed to allege facts that constituted evidence of recklessness: When motive is not alleged and the plaintiff
relies entirely on allegations of recklessness in alleging scienter, the evidence presented must be proportionately greater than if motive is alleged.
In suits brought against an officer under Title 42 United States Code, Section 1983, alleging the officer's use of force violated the Constitution, the plaintiff
will frequently assert that the officer's violation of the department's policy is evidence of the constitutional violation.
claim, among other things, violations of the various acts: (a) by selling securities through persons who were not registered as agents and/or broker dealers with the Securities Exchange Commission or the States of Florida or Indiana and were not affiliated as an agent or representative of any broker/dealer; (b) by failing to disclose to purchasers of RelationServe Media, Inc.
Similarly, Florida provides for several liability only among defendants deemed to have less responsibility for injuries than the plaintiff
, and noneconomic damages are awarded only on a several basis.
If the insurer purchases the annuity and retains exclusive ownership, the plaintiff
in a physical injury action (who was designated to receive the annuity payments) may fully exclude these payments from gross income, not merely their discounted present value.
Rising malpractice premiums are attributed to larger jury verdicts in favor of injured plaintiffs
Therefore, it would appear that as a matter of equity, plaintiff
, Investment Properties should received the benefits of the refund on the taxes it paid, unless other factors intervene.
This case is significant to the accounting profession because the highest court in a commercially significant state has placed definitive restrictions on how long a plaintiff
can wait to bring an accounting malpractice action.