No plaintiff can ever rely on it.

The question here is whether the plaintiff reasonably relied on the eventual legal responsibility of the defendants under the circumstances.

The plaintiffs could not have reasonably relied on the employees and, thus, the employees were shielded from liability.

The plaintiff relied on Lawrence to show that an appropriation could occur, even if the owner consented.

For that, the plaintiff relies upon Lace v Chantler.

It followed that the second ground on which the plaintiff relied was also bad.

More commonly, a plaintiff relies on circumstantial or indirect evidence.

The court is not required to hunt through the record to locate the specific controverting evidence on which plaintiff relies.

As a general rule, a plaintiff can only rely on a legal remedy to the point that he proves that he suffered a loss.

In their lawsuit, the three plaintiffs are relying on a section of the state's wetlands statute governing esthetic, as well as physical, concerns.