However, the plaintiff cannot have both, and must therefore make an election of one or the other.

And plaintiff has made a "substantial case on the merits" of his appeal.

"The plaintiffs in Morris could have made a killing selling off land during the 80's, but they didn't," he said.

The plaintiff made four arguments challenging the constitutionality of the 1986 Act.

It's an argument that a plaintiff could make, but I don't know whether it would succeed.

The plaintiffs made their closing remarks on the third day of the trial.

This could apply where the plaintiff has made an unreasonable use of the product.

The plaintiff may then make a speech in reply.

In the Supreme Court's view, the plaintiffs have effectively made that case already.