Sentences with phrase «appeal in this case noted»

Not exact matches

(It should be noted that late tern abortions make up a very small percentage of abortions, as do cases of rape and incest... so both sides tend to appeal to rare cases in debates.)

Here again I appeal to Susanne Langer's evidence, which consists largely in noting cases of irrational fear on the part of chimpanzees, fear that can not be explained either by instinct or by learning.

The Court of Appeals for this Circuit in the Gaidry case took note of these two cases, but held them not reconcilable with the later ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Baglin v. Cusenier, 221 U. S. 680 [1 T. M. Rep. 147], wherein it was held that the fact that the primary meaning of the word «Chartreuse» was geographical did not prevent the acquisition of the exclusive right to its use as the designation of a liqueur made by the monks of the Monastery of La Grande Chartreuse.

Opponents note that the laws will give PiS overall control of the supreme court, which in addition to serving as the highest court of appeal for all civilian and criminal cases is also responsible for validating elections.

The Court of Appeals eventually ruled in Soares» favor but even then - Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman noted the case involved a «personal issue back and forth» between Carter and Soares.

Romney also seeks to make the case for Astorino's electoral appeal by noting, «He was twice elected [executive] in Democratic Westchester County because he effectively governs in a bipartisan way.»

The judge described the application as totally strange, noting that having not appealed against the interim forfeiture order, Ogungbeje had no right to seek a stay of proceedings in the case.

The judges in the redistricting case, Reena Raggi and Gerard E. Lynch of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Dora L. Irizarry of Federal District Court in Brooklyn, noted that the magistrate judge they assigned to draw the new map managed to do in just two weeks what lawmakers «have been unable, or unwilling, to provide New York State voters in more than a year.»

But in ruling it is unconstitutional to fund operations of Type 2 charter schools with funds appropriated to the MFP for parish and city school systems, Fields noted that the appeals court sent the case back to him for further proceedings «consistent with this opinion.»

It is important to note that the decision in a federal court of appeals is not binding on the cases that are outside of its circuit — there are 13 different federal court of appeals circuits.

On appeal the Cains argued that the trial court erred by giving Instruction 10 which included language that noted «punitive damages are generally not favored and should be awarded only in cases involving egregious conduct.»

However, the case was appealed and while the appeal court ultimately decided that the separation agreement was void as against public policy, it also noted that courts needed to use caution in finding contracts to be void as contrary to public policy so that the doctrine does not «unduly impinge on the basic right to enforce engagements freely and voluntarily made.»

As noted in the Court of Appeal Case in Solomon v Cromwell Group PLC Oliver v Doughty (2011): «The effect of accepting a Part 36 Offer made before a claim is issued, is that the Claimant is entitled to recover costs incurred in contemplation of proceedings ``

Citing Walsh v. Mobil, 2008 ABCA 268 (CanLII) at 43, the Court of Appeal noted its role involved determining whether the reviewing judge's decision (in this case the decision of Topolniski J.C.Q.B.A. with respect to the Chief Commissioner's decision) chose and applied the correct standard of review.

(Please note the case discussed in this post was overturned by the BC Court of Appeal in reasons for judgment released on September 21, 2010.

In the case at bar, the Supreme Court overturned an increase in sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal, noting that «if Parliament hopes to sustain mandatory minimum penalties for offences that cast a wide net, it should consider narrowing their reach so that they only catch offenders that merit the mandatory minimum sentences.&raquIn the case at bar, the Supreme Court overturned an increase in sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal, noting that «if Parliament hopes to sustain mandatory minimum penalties for offences that cast a wide net, it should consider narrowing their reach so that they only catch offenders that merit the mandatory minimum sentences.&raquin sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal, noting that «if Parliament hopes to sustain mandatory minimum penalties for offences that cast a wide net, it should consider narrowing their reach so that they only catch offenders that merit the mandatory minimum sentences.»

As noted in a recent case at the British Columbia Court of Appeal, the offender, a long - time drug addict, began his addiction to illicit drugs during his first term of imprisonment at a federal penitentiary.

A McKenzie friend The phrase McKenzie friend comes from the 1970 Court of Appeal case McKenzie v McKenzie -LRB-[1970] 3 All ER 1034) in which a husband acting in person in contested divorce proceedings successfully appealed the decision of the lower court to deny him the use of an assistant to take notes, quietly advise, and prompt him at the trial.

Public nuisance As to public nuisance, the Court of Appeal noted the observations of Lords Justices Schiemann and Keene in the «instructive» Zain case (Nottingham City Council v. Zain [2001] EWCA Civ 1248) where Schiemann LJ had considered it to be ``... within the proper sphere of a local authority's activities to try and put an end to all public nuisances in its area provided always that it considers that it is expedient for the promotion or protection of the interests of the inhabitants of its area to do so in a particular case».

A few changes should be noted with regard to appeals, particularly in the reduction of time limits available for parties to respond to an appellate brief (article 373), and the limits placed on the subjects and judgments which may not be the subject of an appeal (article 32), such as case management decisions.

I love the confidence I feel from noting up a case using an electronic database; I hate it when I find that (contrary to the results of my electronic search) the case has in fact been overturned on appeal.

On the procedural front, for those dealing with cases in the Principal Registry of the Family Division (PRFD), Baker J issued a note in October 2017 as to the allocation of appeals from PRFD district judges.

(Order, p. 2) As the court notes in its summary of the order, an acquittal can issue either when a jury returns a not - guilty verdict, or «when a trial court grants a defendant's new trial motion for evidentiary insufficiency... or dismisses a case... for evidentiary insufficiency» (Id., pp. 2 — 3) The essence of the court's decision is in two parts: (1) The new trial motion should not have been granted because there was sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Stern on counts of conspiracy; and (2) Because the trial court did not rule on the majority of the issues raised in Stern's motion for a new trial, those issues have yet to be decided, and should be addressed on remand by the court of appeals.

In particular, the Court of Appeal noted that Nortel's CCAA proceeding had been languishing for more than seven years and have been described as eclipsing all other CCAA cases in both duration and expensIn particular, the Court of Appeal noted that Nortel's CCAA proceeding had been languishing for more than seven years and have been described as eclipsing all other CCAA cases in both duration and expensin both duration and expense.

The Court of Appeal noted that, while the warning is not required in all cases, it is required in circumstances where ««a detainee has asserted the right [to counsel] and then apparently change [s] his mind» after reasonable efforts to contact counsel have been frustrated».

1 As an aside, it's interesting to note that Justice Karakatsanis was the judge with the shortest turnaround time for cases while she was on the Ontario Court of Appeal, in an analysis I did last year: http://wiffenlaw.ca/blog/item/24-the-judges-of-the-court-of-appeal-civil-version

The appeals court affirmed the district court, distinguishing prior cases awarding design patent damages for components by noting that the components in earlier cases were sold separately and considered separate products.

The appeals court did note that if a court faces an emergency situation it may make a temporary change of custody before a hearing is held or before the other parent is notified, but because this was not the case in this situation the court was required to provide mother notice and an opportunity to present evidence before changing the child custody orders.

However, when the Court of Appeals reviewed the law, in this case, it noted that — in every case it reviewed — the marital agreement was made before the debt was incurred.

He views the disappearance of trials as «a change in [the] very architecture» of our judicial system, a system for resolving disputes that, he notes, has largely remained constant for more than 200 years.8 Similarly, Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan Hecht explains, «It's a detriment if we lose the development of the common law through cases and appeals that have been the [basis of the] rule of law in this country since its founding.»

In another case (2004 CanLII 73143), the Court of Appeal of Quebec acknowledges the implied rule of confidentiality but notes the competitive business environment warrants and orders the parties to keep the disclosed documentation confidential.

(correct test for Barrister appeals; whether outside the ex improviso rule, prosecutor may call evidence after prosecution and defence case closed; use of debarring orders against prosecutor; whether tribunal may «enter the arena» and strongly request the attendance of a prosecution witness; whether BSB has power to summons witnesses; whether prosecutor may communicate with disciplinary judge behind the back of the defence; whether such communication redolent of actual bias of judge where judge wishes prosecutor good luck on appeal; whether apparent bias doctrine can be engaged by post-trial conduct of judge; legal effect of serving BSB prosecutions department officer being 1 of 4 appointing members of the COIC «Tribunals Appointments Body» (TAB); whether TAB ultra vires the Bar's Constitutions; whether open - ended power of removal of member of COIC pool without cause, unlawful given position of BSB Chair and senior staff on COIC; whether ECHR Article 6 guarantees against pressure on disciplinary judges to conform with a prosecutorial mentality; whether disciplinary judges Art. 6 «independent» within Findlay v United Kingdom given key role of BSB prosecutions department in appointing disciplinary judges; serious non-disclosure by BSB of notes of secret meeting between BSB and disciplinary judge until day before appeal and despite requests and application for disclosure by defence)

Self - represented litigants had their appeals dismissed in two other cases where the Court of Appeal noted that their claims were non-meritorious.

However, criminal cases went to the Supreme Court only when «there has been a dissent on a question of law in the provincial Court of Appeal or where the acquittal of an accused has been reversed by the Court of Appeal», as noted by former Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci.

Comparing the present matter to Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2014] 3 SCR 31, 2014 SCC 59 (CanLII), the Court of Appeal noted at para. 51 that, whereas the hearing fees in that case «actually bar access to the superior courts» by preventing ``... some individuals from having their private and public law disputes resolved by the courts», the «proper balance» is achieved by the legislature with respect to civil jury fees:

The Court of Appeals noted the great deference they gave to an Administrative Law Judge's findings in cases where causation appears to be idiopathic or unclear.

When I blogged on the May 14, 2014 Court of Appeals opinion in the case of Mick - Skaggs v. Skaggs, I noted the curious decision to change the ground for divorce from no - fault to mutual fault.

Although the Court of Appeals» ruling with respect to whether the pronounced results exception applies is not surprising, it is interesting that the court noted that even in cases in which it may apply, a plaintiff may not be relieved of the obligation to provide an expert affidavit with his or her complaint.

Is important to note that while the Trust Approach was expressly approved by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in the case of Cronk v. Canadian General Insurance Co. (1995), 25 OR (3d) 505 (CA), such an approach has appeared to have fallen into disapproval more recently (see e.g.: Russo v. Kerr, 2010 ONSC 6053.)

This did not occur in this case and the Court of Appeal made note of it:

As the Court of Appeal in Schwark held that the elements necessary to establish a proprietary estoppel were not made out in that case, I note that the observation by the court that «to establish unconscionability», one must meet the five - part test laid out by Fry J. in Willmott v. Barber, supra, is obiter to its decision.

In this case, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of a sentencing judge to reject a joint submission for a two year sentence for an accused convicted of impaired driving causing death and upheld the sentence imposed of two years and eight months; noting, however, that a sentence of no less than four years ought to have been imposed: R v Gibson, 2015 ABCA 41 (CanLII).

(Note, however, the Court of Appeal's recent statements regarding the enforcement of awards under section 102 (1) of the 1996 Act in Lombard - Knight v Rainstorm Pictures Inc [2014] EWCA Civ 356, a case discussed in detail in question 11.3 below.)

[On a side note, an excellent family court judge heard the case and the attorneys involved in the appeal are excellent family court / appellate attorneys; and I can imagine that for the newer members of the family law bar, the trial would have been an interesting one to observe (although I could guess that the trial judge would use other characterizations than «interesting.»)-RSB-

In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal distinguished Evans noting that the plaintiff in that case had proposed to return to work for at least part of the notice perioIn reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal distinguished Evans noting that the plaintiff in that case had proposed to return to work for at least part of the notice perioin that case had proposed to return to work for at least part of the notice period.

Thus, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's findings of fact on causation were made in the absence of evidence, a processing error similar to that in other cases noted above.

A person who feels they are affected by a development permit may appeal the issuance of that permit before an development appeal board — in this case the planning commission noted above.

It should be noted that the decision of the Court of Appeal was set aside by the Supreme Court of Canada at [2008] 3 S.C.R. 453, however this was based on insurance issues in the case and the above noted principle extracted from the reasons of the majority was not called into question in the Supreme Court of Canada decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the trial judge's finding of negligence but, as in the above noted cases, held that there was an absence of evidence on causAppeal dismissed the appeal on the trial judge's finding of negligence but, as in the above noted cases, held that there was an absence of evidence on causappeal on the trial judge's finding of negligence but, as in the above noted cases, held that there was an absence of evidence on causation.

In telling students this, I think I inevitably left the (mistaken) impression, by inference, that one did not need to worry about noting up Supreme Court of Canada cases after 1949 for judicial history (i.e., to see if the case was reversed on appeal)(but I am consistent in telling students that one should always noteup all Supreme Court of Canada decisions from any period of time for judicial and academic commentary and to find «like» cases, which would have, in the situation that follows, have caught the mistake in any eventIn telling students this, I think I inevitably left the (mistaken) impression, by inference, that one did not need to worry about noting up Supreme Court of Canada cases after 1949 for judicial history (i.e., to see if the case was reversed on appeal)(but I am consistent in telling students that one should always noteup all Supreme Court of Canada decisions from any period of time for judicial and academic commentary and to find «like» cases, which would have, in the situation that follows, have caught the mistake in any eventin telling students that one should always noteup all Supreme Court of Canada decisions from any period of time for judicial and academic commentary and to find «like» cases, which would have, in the situation that follows, have caught the mistake in any eventin the situation that follows, have caught the mistake in any eventin any event).