Plaintiffs lacking other evidence to support their claims may demand that defendants take an oath swearing their innocence, refusal thereof can result in a verdict for the plaintiff.

Plaintiffs have no property right in an undifferentiated, unidentifiable mass of dirt that may or may not contain the remains of plaintiffs ' loved ones.

Plaintiffs generally may now file initial pleadings that seek alternative means of relief, and need not make the election of remedies until a judgment is rendered as to the liability of the defendant.

Plaintiffs have indicated they may appeal further.

On September 11, 2009, the District court dismissed the case against the Franciscans without prejudice on grounds of lack of federal jurisdiction and denied Plaintiffs ' motion to amend the complaint on November 13, 2009.

" As to Plaintiffs ' trust beneficiary claims, the Solicitor-General argues that the HHCA and Admission Act " extinguished any trustee role that the United States might once have had.

Plaintiffs are represented by barristers drawn from the Senior Court bar whose members are licensed to argue cases before the Council and French Supreme Court ; any such barrister bears the title of Counsel at Senior Court ( avocat aux Conseils ).

This suit coming on this day before this court for withdrawal in the presence of Mr. R. Rangachariar, Advocate for the Plaintiffs herein, of Mr. K. Venugopala Iyengar, Advocate for Defendants 1 herein, and of Mr. R. Soundara rajan, Advocate for Defendants 2 to 5 herein, and the said Advocates for the parties hereto represent to this court that the suit has been settled out of court, it is ordered as follows :-

Speer settled all claims with the Plaintiffs before they ever went to trial.

Plaintiffs introduced statements by President Barack Obama, from prepared remarks, that DADT " doesn't contribute to our national security ", " weakens our national security ", and that reversal is " essential for our national security ".

Plaintiffs here invoked the right to vote and have their vote counted, but they are permitted to vote and their vote is already counted.

In a 2007 ruling in a trial relating to automobile emission regulation in Vermont, U. S. District Court Chief Judge William K. Sessions wrote, " Plaintiffs ’ own expert, Dr. Christy, agrees with the IPCC ’ s assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations.

Plaintiffs specifically argue that the Bank is liable for processing payments sent by the " Saudi Committee in Support of the Intifada Al Quds " to Palestinians from 2000 through 2004.

Plaintiffs have appealed this to the Ninth Circuit on grounds that the Vatican Bank is engages in commercial activity in the United States.

This change of heart has not been able to stop the chain of events that began with the arrest of jailed dissident Li Zhi, which resulted in another lawsuit being filed against Yahoo on behalf of Plaintiffs Zheng Cunzhu and Guo Quan who allege the loss of property and a garment business.

Krinsky has denied many of the allegations and filed counter-claims against the Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs alleged both contributory and vicarious copyright infringement by Napster, and soon filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in order to stop the exchange of plaintiffs ' songs on the service immediately.

On May 8, 2006, the Solicitor General filed a brief for the United States in opposition to the cross petition, arguing that the Plaintiffs lack standing to sue because the U. S. " does not require the State of Hawaii to impose taxes to support those undertakings.

Lord Justices Waller, Fox and May affirmed McClory's right to make James Bond films and enjoined the Plaintiffs from taking similar legal action against McClory in the future.

Plaintiffs have invested huge sums over the years in producing motion pictures in reliance upon a legal framework that, through the law of copyright, has ensured that they will have the exclusive right to copy and distribute those motion pictures for economic gain.

Plaintiffs in CEQA lawsuits seek various forms of redress, such as amending the EIR, preparing a new EIR, agreeing to mitigation measures, or paying money to local agencies to offset environmental impacts.

" Plaintiffs ( Scientologists ) have abused the federal court system by using it, inter alia, to destroy their opponents, rather than to resolve an actual dispute over trademark law or any other legal matter.

Plaintiffs / respondents, parents of African-American children in seven states where public schools had recently been desegregated, brought a nation-wide class action lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service in federal district court, contending that IRS guidelines and procedures for determining whether private schools were racially discriminatory, and subsequent denial of tax exempt status to such schools, were insufficient.

Citing Plaintiffs ' argument in court filings that intervening Supreme Court cases relating to marriage and to LGBT rights distinguished Perry from Baker, District Judge Vaughn Walker denied Defendant-Intervenors ' Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Plaintiffs ' second argument was that this act was " unconstitutional and the Executive Order was invalid ", because one of the stipulations of the act was that " prices, rent, wages and salaries shall be stabilized for a period of 90-days " as stated by President Nixon.

Plaintiffs ' rights would be defined, and in most cases limited, by the writs available to them.

Plaintiffs will be able to sue for damages based on the duty of care.

Plaintiffs argued that this property was not slum housing and that it could not be taken for a project under the management of a private agency to be redeveloped for private use simply to make the community more attractive overall.

HFT also asserts it properly paid store managers as allowed by law, and unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys ' fees and costs should not be awarded to Plaintiffs.

This was the salient argument because it was the first time that the act was opposed and the Executive Order was being questioned, since the Plaintiffs believed that the order did not do justice to the workers under unions and that the this act imposed on the power of the unions, since they had to operate under a 90-day spending freeze.

# That by retroactively extending copyright terms, Congress had violated the requirements of the Constitution's Copyright Clause, which gives Congress the following power: " To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries " ( emphasis added ) Plaintiffs argued that by reading this formulation so as to allow for any number of retroactive extensions, Congress could in practice guarantee an unlimited period of copyright protection, thus thwarting the intent of the clause.

The Plaintiffs were represented by Ron Castan, Bryan Keon-Cohen and Greg McIntyre.

Raw milk expert testimony dated: April 25, 2008 Case: ORGANIC PASTURES DAIRY COMPANY, LLC, and CLARAVALE FARM, INC., Plaintiffs, vs. No. CU-07-00204 STATE OF CALIFORNIA and A. G. KAWAMURA, SECRETARY OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, Defendants.

On 13 June 2008 a Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation ( MDL ) granted the Plaintiffs ’ motion to centralize individual and class-action lawsuits involving Levaquin in the District of Minnesota over objection of Defendants, Johnson and Johnson / Ortho McNeil.

Plaintiffs in the case promoted equality yet it was ultimately dependent on appearance and race.

Lessig refocused the Plaintiffs ' brief to emphasize the Copyright clause restriction, as well as the First Amendment argument from the Appeals case.

Removing works from the public domain violated Plaintiffs ' vested First Amendment interests.

Plaintiffs in a lawsuit pending at that time provided documentation showing that the local Monsanto factory knowingly discharged both mercury and PCB-laden waste into local creeks for over 40 years.

" Plaintiffs plan to appeal the decision.

Plaintiffs alleged that Ohio Revised Code § 2907. 01 ( E ) and ( J ), which prohibited the dissemination or display of “ materials harmful to juveniles ,” unconstitutionally violated both the First Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Plaintiffs specifically challenged the statute's definition of " harmful to juveniles ," as well as the provisions governing internet dissemination of those materials.

Plaintiffs were represented by Anne M. Vohl, Esq.

:" Far from ‘ inactivity ,’ by choosing to forgo insurance, Plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now, through the purchase of insurance.