Legal Prima Facie Case Statute 
JayS.Rothman&Associates
MAY 17, 2023
Where the statute doesn’t directly prohibit associational retaliation, courts have also given broad interpretations that favor protection for the associates of whistleblowers. This means that employees cannot suffer adverse actions simply because someone they associate with engaged in legally-protected activity, such as blowing the whistle.
Day on Torts
JANUARY 11, 2022
Where plaintiff had filed complaints with the Board of Professional Responsibility (BPR) complaining of the same allegations that allegedly supported her legal malpractice claim, and those BPR complaints were filed more than one year before the legal malpractice suit was filed, summary judgment based on the statute of limitations was affirmed.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Day on Torts
OCTOBER 3, 2022
Defendant filed a petition for dismissal pursuant to the TPPA, and after finding that the TPPA applied, that plaintiff was a limited-purpose public figure in the context of this action, and that plaintiff “had not established a prima facie case for actual malice,” the trial court dismissed the case. The TPPA, Tenn.
Day on Torts
NOVEMBER 15, 2022
6) standard, which challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the strength of the plaintiff’s proof or evidence, and requires the court to construe the complaint liberally, presuming all factual allegations to be true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” quoting Tenn. Code Ann. §
Patently O
DECEMBER 4, 2023
The court found that Dorel had established a prima facie case that Cozy’s founder, Dr. Arjuna Rajasingham, “manipulated the PTO into recognizing priority dates to which he was not entitled” and “relied on the advice of his counsel to perpetrate a fraud on the PTO.” Quoting Clark v. United States , 289 U.S.
Conflict of Laws
OCTOBER 1, 2024
9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, where the court owing to the legally abusive nature of the foreign proceedings, deemed it to be “just and convenient” to pass an injunction against the respondents from enforcing the Dubai Court’s decree against the petitioners. The judgment was predicated on a liberal understanding of S.9
Conflict of Laws
JUNE 11, 2023
The Chinese Judgment recorded that: ‘[t]he defendant [Yin] failed to attend despite having been legally summoned to attend. Efthrim AsJ considered that the statement in the Chinese Judgment that Yin had ‘been legally summoned to attend’ was enough to defeat the natural justice defence: [2022] VSC 729, [74]–[79].
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
98 
Let's personalize your content