Sentences with phrase «appeal court judge agreed»

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court Judge agreed the officer should have removed himself from the home and sought lawful authority to conduct the search which resulted in the seizure of the accused's firearms.

Not exact matches

The last - minute rewrite prompted a federal judge in September to dismiss challenges by Wheaton College and Belmont Abbey, but the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to consider the cases.

The new panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with a lower court judge who ruled last summer that prosecutors had coerced Dassey into his video - taped confession, which was played on the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with a lower court judge who ruled last summer that prosecutors had coerced Dassey into his video - taped confession, which was played on the court judge who ruled last summer that prosecutors had coerced Dassey into his video - taped confession, which was played on the show.

A three - man panel of the Court of Appeal led by Justice Helen Ogunwumiju, unanimously agreed with the decision of Justice A.M. Liman of the Federal High Court in Enugu that there was no legal basis to grant the prayer sought by the former Chief Judge.

But the judge who handled his corruption trial noted in a ruling earlier this year that his lawyer had asked that Monserrate be sentenced to just probation in both court filings and that Monserrate had signed off on the restitution agreement both in writing and verbally and had also agreed not to appeal when he pleaded guilty.

In a decision the next spring, a county Supreme Court judge agreed, and allowed the work to proceed, even though the town appealed and asked for a stay.

The high court agreed to decide whether officials facing such lawsuits in state courts have the right to immediately appeal a judge's decision denying them official immunity.

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge agreed; an appeals court didCourt judge agreed; an appeals court didcourt did not.

In a 2 - 1 decision, with Judge Chris Dillon agreeing in part with the majority, the three - judge appeals court panel found that the repeal of teacher tenure in 2013, a bill signed by Gov. Pat McCrory, amounted to an illegal taking of contract and property riJudge Chris Dillon agreeing in part with the majority, the three - judge appeals court panel found that the repeal of teacher tenure in 2013, a bill signed by Gov. Pat McCrory, amounted to an illegal taking of contract and property rijudge appeals court panel found that the repeal of teacher tenure in 2013, a bill signed by Gov. Pat McCrory, amounted to an illegal taking of contract and property rights.

Plaintiff districts in the state's school funding case known as Leandro succeeded in court this month when a three - judge panel of the North Carolina Court of Appeals agreed that the state can not create barriers that would prevent eligible preschoolers from enrolling in a pre-kindergarten procourt this month when a three - judge panel of the North Carolina Court of Appeals agreed that the state can not create barriers that would prevent eligible preschoolers from enrolling in a pre-kindergarten proCourt of Appeals agreed that the state can not create barriers that would prevent eligible preschoolers from enrolling in a pre-kindergarten program.

Anyway, the judges have now agreed to hear the appeal on whether the Court of Appeals can hear the appeal.

On December 6, 2010, the Supreme Court said it will hear an appeal from defendant electric utilities, agreeing to consider ending the federal lawsuit by eight states, which asks a federal judge to order reductions in the emissions in plants in 20 states.

A few months after holding an hourlong oral argument, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in late July to remand the case to the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel, who, in turn, agreed to vacate eight of his published opinions and to «direct» Lexis and Westlaw to remove them from their databjudge, U.S. District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel, who, in turn, agreed to vacate eight of his published opinions and to «direct» Lexis and Westlaw to remove them from their databJudge Lawrence F. Stengel, who, in turn, agreed to vacate eight of his published opinions and to «direct» Lexis and Westlaw to remove them from their databases.

Farkhad Akhmedov, 61, has shown «naked determination», one judge said, to keep his immense # 453 million fortune out of the reach of his former wife, Tatiana, but the Court of Appeal judges on Tuesday agreed that his solicitor was rightly ordered to disclose that the businessman's # 90 million art collection was held by «entities in Liechtenstein».

Once that happened, of course, the Court of Appeal for Ontario agreed that the trial Judge had imposed a burden on the accused that was inappropriate.

[4] In the reasons for judgment of the Court of Appeal, Justice Hourigan agreed with the motions judge that the «occurrence» causing property damage in this case was the scratching of the windows caused by the contractor's employees and not the presence of airborne cement debris.

Since the Chambers Judge's order «would seem to prevent the Province from pursuing all enforcement remedies against [the Respondent], regardless of whether they relate to a specific court proceeding», the Court of Appeal agreed the order inappropriately restrained the lawful conduct of a government official and was, therefore, in the nature of an injunction against the Ccourt proceeding», the Court of Appeal agreed the order inappropriately restrained the lawful conduct of a government official and was, therefore, in the nature of an injunction against the CCourt of Appeal agreed the order inappropriately restrained the lawful conduct of a government official and was, therefore, in the nature of an injunction against the Crown.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge, finding that Council was faced with a volatile situation in which litigation was almost inevitable.

The appeal court judges went on to agree with those findings on the issue of limits to security of the person.

A majority of the judges of this Court agree with the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge's ruling without specifically addressing the territorial limitation contained in the Act.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the first instance judge that the claim was time - barred but held that his cause of action accrued when he acted on the alleged negligent advice in 1997; an earlier date than that found at first instance (it also agreed that the claimant could not successfully overcome the limitation defence by relying on the provisions of s 14A of the Limitation Act 1980).

The Court of Appeal agreed, allowed the appeal, and remitted the matter back to the trial judge to reconsider the iAppeal agreed, allowed the appeal, and remitted the matter back to the trial judge to reconsider the iappeal, and remitted the matter back to the trial judge to reconsider the issues.

«With the exception of the retired judge's mistake in having the parties execute a document memorializing the terms of a «civil mediation,» there is no doubt that the parties agreed to and in fact participated in binding arbitration,» the appeals court held.

Although this appeal does not raise only issues of credibility, I agree with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the trial judge's decision was reasonable, was supported by the evidence and that he had committed no error in the application of the relevant law to the appeal does not raise only issues of credibility, I agree with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the trial judge's decision was reasonable, was supported by the evidence and that he had committed no error in the application of the relevant law to the Appeal that the trial judge's decision was reasonable, was supported by the evidence and that he had committed no error in the application of the relevant law to the facts.

All were agreed that the appeal must be allowed with the result that, at the end of a process which started with allegations made in August 2014, and in included a substantial trial before a High Court Judge, any findings of fact made by the Judge and recorded in her oral determinations made in December 2016 and on 30 January 2017 must be set aside and must be disregarded in any future dealings with this family.

In the unanimous decision, the appeal court agreed that Judge Lenehan had made several errors in law.

In the Godard case, the Motion Judge and the Court of Appeal both agreed concluded that, since separation, the mother had engaged in behaviour that tried to limit or terminate the father's access to his daughter.

The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge in both respects, there was a breach of Cole's Charter rights and the evidence should be excluded.

Basically if you do not agree with the factual finding of a judge, i.e. what you did or did not do wrong, the BC Court of Appeal will not interfere with the trial judge and will uphold his or her judgement unless he / she clearly got the facts wrong — and to a degree that the entire judgment would fall because of that error.

As amply demonstrated by developments in March 2016 in the US appeal courts, which confirmed the relatively limited role of judges in determining the contents of DPAs in the US, 20 the principal difference is that even where prosecuting authorities are prepared to enter into negotiations and agree proposed terms, those terms require the approval of senior judges in the UK.

The Court of Appeal also found that Judge Lenehan had erred in discounting the extensive circumstantial evidence that would have allowed him to infer that the complainant had not voluntarily agreed to engage in sexual activity, or that she lacked the capacity to do so.

His appeal against conviction was dismissed by a majority of the Court of Appeal for Ontario... We agree with Justice Pardu that the trial judge's reasons, even when read as a whole and in the context of the trial record, fail to reveal the basis on which the trial judge concluded that the Crown had proven the mental element of the offence beyond a reasonable appeal against conviction was dismissed by a majority of the Court of Appeal for Ontario... We agree with Justice Pardu that the trial judge's reasons, even when read as a whole and in the context of the trial record, fail to reveal the basis on which the trial judge concluded that the Crown had proven the mental element of the offence beyond a reasonable Appeal for Ontario... We agree with Justice Pardu that the trial judge's reasons, even when read as a whole and in the context of the trial record, fail to reveal the basis on which the trial judge concluded that the Crown had proven the mental element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal agreed with Judge Blair's firm rejection of the argument that silence should be understood as a refusal to accept the contents of the letter.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge's decision that Mr. Chevalier should have returned to work when offered re-employment and that in not so doing; he had failed to mitigate his damages.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge's conclusion that the negligence of Deloitte caused damages to Livent for the 1997 audit period onward.

The motions judge found, and the Court of Appeal agreed, that the scope of the non-solicitation clause was very limited, and only germane to clients of the dentists that operate out of Smilecorp's premises.

The three judges agreed to the Crown request to stay the order for a new trial until a final decision is made on any appeal that may be made to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the trial judge and the Court of Appeal that the amendments that were introduced in this piece of legislation were not unconstitutional.

As such, the Court of Appeal could not agree with the Appellants» argument that, in the circumstances of this case, the Trial Judge ought to have relaxed the causation test so as to permit a «common sense» analysis of the issue.

A three - judge panel for the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court and kept the stay in pCourt of Appeals agreed with the lower court and kept the stay in pcourt and kept the stay in place.

Did you know that in Alberta since September last year just about every appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal — the appellant has to get permission from the court to file the appeal and often the judge whose decision is being appealed has to appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal — the appellant has to get permission from the court to file the appeal and often the judge whose decision is being appealed has to aCourt of Appeal — the appellant has to get permission from the court to file the appeal and often the judge whose decision is being appealed has to Appeal — the appellant has to get permission from the court to file the appeal and often the judge whose decision is being appealed has to acourt to file the appeal and often the judge whose decision is being appealed has to appeal and often the judge whose decision is being appealed has to agree.

The trial judge dismissed both claims, but the Court of Appeal allowed the claim of unjust enrichment and ordered the parties to agree on a sum of money or to return to cCourt of Appeal allowed the claim of unjust enrichment and ordered the parties to agree on a sum of money or to return to courtcourt.

The trial judge held, and the Court of Appeal agreed, that the non-selling shareholders did not owe a fiduciary duty to the selling shareholders.

The request to lift the stay was refused by Mr Justice Field in the Commercial Court, but leave to appeal was granted, however, the judge agreed that NNPC had a good prima facie case of fraud entitling it to resist enforcement.

If you have been to Small Claims Court but do not agree with the judge's decision, you may want to appeal it.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motions judge that Wilk had failed to prove that Arbour, as Zeus's owner, could have reasonably foreseen the danger that could result in Wilk's damages.

Parties may agree that, rather than proceed to an appeal before an Appellate Court of a province, they will instead appeal to one or three retired Judges (or other members) of ADR Chambers.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge's conclusion that because the defendant had expressed extreme annoyance with the plaintiff's actions it would not be reasonable for the plaintiff to return to work.

«Justices signal dismay at Texas; Decision to hear capital cases may suggest high court questions handling»: The Dallas Morning News today contains an article that begins, «The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear three Texas death penalty cases in its new term, a move that veteran court watchers called the latest signal of the court's increasing frustration with how condemned inmates» appeals are handled by Texas» highest criminal judges and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.&rcourt questions handling»: The Dallas Morning News today contains an article that begins, «The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear three Texas death penalty cases in its new term, a move that veteran court watchers called the latest signal of the court's increasing frustration with how condemned inmates» appeals are handled by Texas» highest criminal judges and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.&rCourt has agreed to hear three Texas death penalty cases in its new term, a move that veteran court watchers called the latest signal of the court's increasing frustration with how condemned inmates» appeals are handled by Texas» highest criminal judges and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.&rcourt watchers called the latest signal of the court's increasing frustration with how condemned inmates» appeals are handled by Texas» highest criminal judges and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.&rcourt's increasing frustration with how condemned inmates» appeals are handled by Texas» highest criminal judges and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.appeals are handled by Texas» highest criminal judges and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.&rCourt of Appeals.Appeals.»