Sentences with phrase «appeal judges deal»

Today I'm taking a similar look at how the Court of Appeal judges deal with criminal cases.

Not exact matches

The twelve judges of the Constitutional Court (appointed by the Spanish parliament, central Government and the General Council of the Judiciary) took nearly four years to deal with the appeal, generating constant uncertainty regarding the final outcome.

Lazarus pointed to Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, as an example of a jurist who «is not ready to give EPA a lot of deference if they're taking language which was crafted at one time and trying to push it at the edges to deal with a problem of another time, like climate change.»

The filing, made to the US District Court in the Southern District of New York on October 3rd, sees Apple appealing not only the ruling but Judge Denise Cote's proposed injunctions, which included long - lasting restrictions on how it could negotiate media deals as well as forced monitoring by an external watchdog.

A subsidiary, and, as time may tell, perhaps a more significant issue, was how an appellate court should deal, on appeal, with a legal services order made by the judge below.

Professor Zuckerman, in a seminar at Manchester on 3 July 2009 said the Court of Appeal should show «leadership» and «develop a coherent policy for enforcing compliance with rules and case management directions by judges and lawyers; non compliance, and dealing with it, being a waste of the court's resources in a public service system».

The court will hear three appeals regarding international tariffs, insurance contracts, and an interesting case in which the judge rejected a plea deal submitted jointly by the defence and prosecution.

The Court of Appeal held that judges should be flexible when dealing with non-compliant documents submitted by SRLs, in order to ensure that admissible portions are considered.

The amendment dealt would have created an independent redistricting commission and assigned Court of Appeals judges, picked by the Chief Justice, to vet proposed members of the commission.

On the back of all this, the differently constituted Court of Appeal dealing with the damages case held that the collection of errors by the judge did amount to gross and obvious irregularity which meant that flagrant denial of justice did not have to be addressed.

Recently, I wrote about an Ontario Court of Appeal called Stevens v. Stevens that dealt with a number of issues, among them the question of whether the trial judge's opinion of the husband had been tainted by the fact that the husband had had an extra-marital affair.

No less than 12 judges were assembled in the Court of Appeal (five) and the Supreme Court (seven) to deal with the thorny questions raised in R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14.

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.

A case in which a former client is self - represented is a nightmare to deal with at trial from a practical perspective for a judge, screws up the judge's calendar if the trial has to be delayed to allow a new lawyer to get up to speed after being hired, and is also much more prone to lead to reversible error that could cause the case to be overturned on appeal.

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeal partially upheld a trial judge's decision awarding over $ 70,000 in damages to the purchasers of a home as a result of fraudulent misrepresentations made by the vendors prior to the deal going through.

A senior immigration tribunal judge has spoken out about the problems dealing with appeals from unrepresented appellants when Home Office caseworkers seek to defend «unsustainable» decisions on appeal.

In 2016, the Alberta Court of Appeal in Kohan v. Kohan gave at paragraph 38 of its decision a list of some of the things that judges should keep in mind when dealing with this issue (click on the following link to find it and scroll down)

The surprise decision upholds a unanimous decision last month by five Quebec Court of Appeal judges, in which the court overturned a Quebec Superior Court ruling that had endorsed the BCE takeover and dismissed the objections of Bell bondholders concerned the deal would harm the value of their investment.

The Court of Appeal also upheld the trial judge's finding of fact that there was no evidence that there was a «bought deal» with the equity investor during the time the share redemption transaction was being negotiated in any event — a key plank of the selling shareholders» case.

(8) The Chief Justice of Ontario, or another judge of the Court of Appeal designated by the Chief Justice, shall chair the meetings and hearings of the Judicial Council that deal with complaints against particular judges and its meetings held for the purposes of section 45 and subsection 47 (5).

Pellew is yet another example of an unsuccessful bias appeal, while Hersey deals with the sufficiency of a motion judge's reasons.

A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) allowed the IPC's appeal (per Justices McLachlin CJ, LeBel, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein), reinstating the adjudicator's order and remitting the matter to the chambers judge to consider the issues that were not dealt with in the original judicial review.

I was the fifth judge to deal with this case after the Court of Appeal made its decision in June 2007.

If a judgment may be appealed then a judge may feel compelled to deal with each and every argument and authority offered by counsel, although to an extent it may vary according to the degree of familiarity of the judge with the subject matter.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that the trial judge had been correct to admit the report so far as it dealt with the facts, and correct to exclude it so far as it offered an expert opinion — though another expert could have given an opinion on the basis of the facts in the report.

Canadian appellate courts usually deal with harmless error (usually an evidentiary ruling by a trial judge that, while mistaken, does not meet the standard of reversible error on appeal, or to warrant a new trial) in the context of criminal trials.

This is perhaps more acute in the lower courts where a judge might wish, out of caution, to deal with every authority lest failure to do so results in an appeal.

Four of the seven SCC judges reached the decision which was released July 31, while the other three declined to deal with the issue, ruling the constitutional argument shouldn't be considered because Julie Guindon, the lawyer who launched the appeal, failed to give proper notice to federal and provincial authorities.

An appeal can only deal with «questions of law», which are basically legal issues the judge made a decision about, not decisions on the facts.

In LM (A Child)(2007) EWCA Civ 9, the Court of Appeal considered how a trial judge should deal with this issue.

The trick is that the orders take effect unless someone appeals them, and since deals like this are usually a result of a plea bargain which waives rights to an appeal, and even if the result is simply imposed by the judge, one has to consider if taking the case up on appeal, having the sentence reversed, and then having it remanded to the same judge for resentencing would be worse from the perspective of the defendant, given the broad authority of a sentencing judge in a minor case like this one, than simply accepting the illegal sentence.

Canadian courts continue to struggle with how to deal with national class actions, as demonstrated in an Ontario Court of Appeal decision on whether an Ontario judge could sit together with colleagues from other provinces to consider the Hepatitis C case.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal recently held, in Ducharme v. Borden, 2014 MBCA 5, that electronic evidence did not require expert support for a judge to deal with its admissibility.

Can we at least agree that it probably wouldn't take an appellate court of 5 judges to deal with the appeal.

For those who want to know what happened in the appeal: the SCC allowed the plaintiff's appeal, restored the trial judge's decision that the defendant was liable, and returned the case to the BCCA to deal with the parties» damages appeals which the BCCA hadn't considered since it dismissed the action.

The Court of Appeal also dealt with the issue of ambiguity that had motivated the trial judge to conclude the pollution exclusion clause should not operate in this instance.

An appeal involves a great deal more than just filing some paperwork asking the appellate judges to review your case.

Such relating requires becoming increasingly skillful in (1) dealing with our inevitable slippage from listening to judging, (2) confiding our thoughts, feelings, strategy, mistakes, and doubts, and (3) appealing to partners as consultants in managing the therapy.