counterclaimed - Synonyms for counterclaimed

Examples of "counterclaimed"
Markat sued the council for payment under the first agreement, for which the council counterclaimed.
Ritvik denied any breach under the Act or at common law and counterclaimed, seeking a declaration that it was entitled to continue to make, offer for sale and sell in Canada its blocks and related parts.
The owners instituted legal proceedings against the council claiming that there are no dedicated public rights of way over the estate and the council counterclaimed, asserting public rights of way over the four main avenues. The owners indicated that they would not be reopening Lissadell if the council won the court action.
Best unsuccessfully sued Ilco claiming patents infringements over their key blade design and utility patents. Ilco counterclaimed that the patents were not valid. In August 1996, court decided that both patents were invalid on basis that its utility patent was already covered in a prior art and that keyway shape was not an ornamental concern for the users.
Loeb sued the Haverhill Gazette Co., Newspapers of New England and its individual managers over anti-trust issues. Gazette Co. counterclaimed on the same grounds. Gazette Co. won the suit, after the court found violations of anti-trust law in the Journal's solicitation of advertisers.
Stroger came under increased fire in the later years of his presidency for what his critics call a scandal- and patronage-ridden administration. Stroger supporters counterclaimed that he dedicated his public career to providing quality and affordable health care for the poorer residents of Cook County.
In 2002, Baron left Baron & Budd along with his wife, Lisa Blue. Baron sued his former firm for breach of contract; Baron & Budd counterclaimed alleging that Baron and Blue breached contractual, fiduciary and legal obligations to the firm by failing to receive prior consent from Baron & Budd for plans to form a new firm.
Marvel subsequently learned of the "Brulotte" decision and realized that under the "Brulotte" doctrine it was not obliged to pay royalties after the patent expired. Kimble sued Marvel for breach of contract and Marvel counterclaimed for a declaration that it was no longer obligated to pay Kimble after the patent expired. Marvel prevailed in the litigation.
The Library Illustrative of Social Progress was a series of pornographic books published by John Camden Hotten around 1872 (falsely dated 1777). They were mainly reprints of eighteenth-century pornographic works on flagellation. Hotten claimed to have found them in the library of Henry Thomas Buckle (1821–1862) but Henry Spencer Ashbee counterclaimed that they were in fact from his collection.
Before the Sixth Circuit's ruling, Static Control initiated a separate action in 2004 seeking declaratory judgment under federal copyright laws and the DMCA that its newly modified chips did not infringe Lexmark's copyrights, and Lexmark counterclaimed raising patent infringement, DMCA violations, and tort claims, and added three remanufacturers as third-party defendants.
Aerotel sued Telco Holdings Limited for patent infringement in February 2005 and Telco counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The action started in the Patents County Court, but HHJ Fysh QC transferred it to the High Court in November 2005. In February 2006, Telco applied for summary judgment on its counterclaim, basing the application on the exclusion to patentability. This application succeeded before Lewison J who ordered revocation of the patent on 3 May 2006.
He then bought electronic copies of the codes from SBCCI. Despite the fact that the codes contained a copyright notice and warnings against copying, Veeck uploaded the codes on his website. SBCCI demanded that Veeck cease and desist from infringing its copyrights. In response, Veeck filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that he did not violate the Copyright Act. SBCCI counterclaimed for copyright infringement and other allegedly wrongful acts.
In June 1940 Mercoid sued Honeywell and Mid-Continent in Chicago federal district court for a declaratory judgment that its fan and limit controls did not infringe or contribute to the infringement of Honeywell's Freeman patent, that the patent was invalid, and that Honeywell was restraining trade in violation of the antitrust laws. Honeywell counterclaimed and sued for patent infringement. The district court held the patent not shown invalid but misused. The court explained the misuse:
When Male publicised the car return in newspapers and other media in 2007, the leaders sued him and Adroa for defamation. The libel claim failed in 2010, and both sides were left to bear their own costs. Adroa had counterclaimed for repairs to the car, but this also failed, as the magistrate did not want to create a precedent for donors to ask for their gifts back if prayers were not fulfilled.
In 1986, the Gallo brothers sued their younger brother Joseph for selling cheese branded with the Joseph Gallo Farms name. Joseph then counterclaimed, alleging that Ernest and Julio conspired to steal his share of the inheritance from their father. This claim included the winery, where the evidence submitted by Joseph's attorney suggested that it was actually started by their father. Joseph Gallo lost both suits and was forced to change the name of his business to Joseph Farms.
In response to the newly confident union, mineowners in Staveley sacked 500 workers for union membership, out of a total workforce of 1,800 in the town. Owners in Hucknall and Kimberley then locked out miners, and the three areas brought in strikebreakers from across Britain. The union counterclaimed for a working day of less than 12 hours, and when being paid by the ton, for this to be based on 21 cwt, not 28 cwt.
Green had dykes. Water from Lord Someleyton’s land drained into the dykes, and Green brought an action in nuisance to stop it happening after a serious flood that came from a lake on Somerleyton’s property. Water had flowed from it through marshland. The trustees of Lord Somerleyton’s land counterclaimed that they had an easement for the water drainage, from a 1921 conveyance by implied reservation.
The IRS again notified the University on April 16, 1975 of the proposed revocation. Officially, the IRS revoked the University's tax exempt status on January 19, 1976. The University paid $21 in unemployment taxes for one employee for tax year 1975 and then filed for a refund in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The Government counterclaimed for unpaid federal unemployment taxes for the taxable years 1971 through 1975, in the amount of $489,675.59, plus interest.
J Spurling Ltd had a warehouse in East London. Mr Andrew Bradshaw had seven barrels of orange juice. He asked Spurling Ltd to store them. In the contract was the "London lighterage clause" which exempted warehousemen from liability due to their negligence. When the barrels were collected, they were damaged. When Bradshaw refused to pay Spurling Ltd, the company sued for the cost. Bradshaw counterclaimed for damages for breach of an implied term of a contract of bailment to take reasonable care.
The bank counterclaimed for repayment of the sums, and joined Wikborg Rein & Co (a Norwegian law firm) as a Part 20 defendant on the counterclaim. The law firm had advised the bank that the Kommunes were able to enter into the transactions, and so on their counterclaim the bank asserted that if transactions were invalid, then Wikborg Rein & Co should be liable to the bank for professional negligence.