The defendants can then argue among themselves how that is to be paid.

The case received national attention, and defendants argued eloquently against the law.

The defendants have also argued that no guarantee ever occurred.

Defendants of the industry argue that market demand should dictate what is fair or not.

The defendants argued that the 1933 Act was not applicable to sellers.

The defendants argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the issue, as it was a political question.

The defendants argued later that their confessions had been beaten out of them by the police.

In both cases they defendants argued that consent was a defence.

The defendants argued that King was a public figure and his words were in the public domain.

The defendants, on the other hand, argued that their bigotry was what entitled them to go free, because it did have content.