Sentences with phrase «appellants argue»

The appellants argue that the motion judge erred in reaching the conclusion that the policy was only for the mortgagees» benefit.

The appellants argue that the language in Standard Charge Term 16 ``... otherwise the Chargee may provide therefor and charge...» (emphasis added) can only mean that the mortgagee / chargee, if it chooses to obtain insurance coverage, must obtain the same coverage that the mortgagor / chargor is required to obtain.

The appellants argue that this amount is approximately one - half the amount agreed upon in their contingency fee agreements.

As for the causes of action other than breach of fiduciary duty (battery, negligence and breaches of common law and international norms), the appellants argue that it is implicit in the motion judge's reasons that he decided the limitations issues in their favour.

Appellants argue there is no discrimination because the amendment bans all religious laws from Oklahoma courts and Sharia law is named only as an example.

«The appellants argue that the production order undermines their role as the eyes and ears of the community by effectively conscripting them into the ranks of law enforcement,» the court noted.

``... the Appellants argue that a BRI share was issued to each of them on October 10, 2012 (ER12), that they did no pay for these shares, and that the value of each share was $ 10,000.

The appellants argue before this Court that ISPs similarly form part of a single broadcasting system that is subject to regulation under the Broadcasting Act.

The appellants argue that a conflict arose because the insurer had reserved its rights regarding coverage under the policy.

The appellants argue such opinion evidence went beyond the area in which Green was qualified to testify and, as well, amounted to impermissible opinions on the ultimate issue the jury was required to decide.

The Appellants argue separate agreements are reached for both streams, granting them exclusive distribution rights for the Respondent's product, the «We - Vibe».

Appellants argue there is no discrimination because the amendment bans all religious laws from Oklahoma courts and Sharia law

In other words, appellants argue that the district court made the wrong decision as a matter of law.

The appellant argued that the prohibition in the statute was only designed to address listening or talking on your cell phone.

The Appellants argued that the contents of this cable indicated that the decision about the MPA was undertaken for the improper purpose of preventing the Islanders return to the Chagos Islands.

The Appellant argued that the trial judge failed to apply the correct tests for determining breaches of ss.

The Appellant argued that claims for fraudulent preferences are advanced on behalf of all the creditors, not just any individual plaintiff creditor.

The Appellant argued that the case management judge should have lifted the stay with respect to these collective components of the creditors» actions.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in applying the doctrine of wilful blindness.

The appellant argued that his deportation would be contrary to his right to family life under ECHR, art 8 and would amount to unlawful discrimination under art 14, as he would not have been liable to deportation if he had not been illegitimate.

The appellant argued the judge erred by failing to conclude there must be an active use of the vehicle to meet the purpose test component of Amos.

The appellants argued that the legislation was outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Act 1998, as it related to a matter that were reserved to the UK Parliament, it was incompatible with the ECHR and / or it was incompatible with EU law.

The appellant argued that the Secretary of State's refusal of her application was incompatible with the Directive in question, though the First - tier Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal all rejected this argument.

On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the appellants argued that the motion judge had erred in several ways, namely by concluding that a broader claim was necessarily advantageous, and in turn assuming that the Rochon Group were better prepared and resourced.

Justice Wagner: «The appellant argues that the broad exclusion clause in the accident insurance contract to the effect that the insurer will pay no benefits if an accident occurred while the insured was participating in an indictable offence may be set up against the heirs of the insured.

The Appellants argued that the bylaws were passed in bad faith because they targeted the HDI specifically, and the Appellants had not received notice of the bylaws.

The appellant argued apparent bias on the basis that the juror would have known the inferences to be drawn from the failure of a witness to identify the appellant on a Viper identity parade and from his «no comment» interview, also that the appellant had explained this interview by his dislike of the police.

The representative of the appellant argues that the judgment of the original court which acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Japanese court in an action of the appellee who is a Japanese national claiming divorce in the present case against the appellant who has a nationality of the German Democratic Republic is against the law.

The appellant argued that the replacement value of a home should be reduced to reflect the element of betterment inherent to replacing an old home with a new home.

On this issue, the appellants argued that the proposed appeal would not unduly hinder the progress of Nortel's CCAA proceedings, as main steps and issues remained to be finalized before distributions to creditors could be made.

Even if customary international law includes certain basic principles applicable to both internal and international armed conflicts, Appellant argues that such prohibitions do not entail individual criminal responsibility when breaches are committed in internal armed conflicts; these provisions can not, therefore, fall within the scope of the International Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The appellants argued that statements made during council meetings are akin to statements made in the federal and provincial parliaments and should be protected by way of a similar speech immunity.8 The absolute privilege enjoyed by members of the legislatures and Parliament, encompassed under the umbrella of «parliamentary privilege,» secures the right of parliamentarians to speak and debate freely in parliamentary proceedings with immunity from civil or criminal action.

The appellant argued that this cross-examination was improper.

First, the appellant argues that the trial judge intervened to such an extent in the examination of witnesses that the appearance of fairness in the trial was fatally compromised.

Second, the appellant argues that the trial judge failed to provide legally adequate Reasons for Judgment in dismissing the appellant's Charter motion and in convicting the appellant on the «over 80» charge, by failing to reconcile the conflicting testimony of the two police officers who testified as to the appellant's indicia of impairment.

In that case, McCaleb v Rose, the appellant argued that provincial enactments could no longer be excluded on the basis of federal jurisdiction over «lands reserved for Indians» following Tsilhqot» in.

The Appellant argues the email discussion between Mr. Morgan and Mr. Bedard constitutes a collateral contract allowing it to unilaterally reduce the number of planes stored in the Respondent's hanger.

The Appellant argues that the application Judge misapplied the pleadings rule and «wrongly assumed» the Respondents could not be occupiers (and so could avail themselves of the insurance policy) because the other family were also occupiers of the property.

The appellants argued that both tiers of the tribunal had not only erred in failing to have regard to the triggers set out in the communication from the EU Commission to the Parliament and the Council (Com (2009) 313), but had also approached the burden of proof incorrectly because applying Papajorgji [2012] UKUT 38 the respondent had to produce evidence showing a reasonable suspicion.

The appellant argued that this draft ITO opened lines of questioning that had not been explored at trial and that the draft ITO had not been properly disclosed by -LSB-...]

The Appellant argued that his Section 8 rights were violated when police entered the common areas of his building and followed him without a warrant.

In the Court of Appeal -LRB-[2016] EWCA Civ 47), the appellant argued that the policies were unnecessarily intrusive and that the SCR policy was discriminatory on grounds of gender reassignment [28].

The appellants argued that when the totality of the evidence relating to Ms. Bradford's fault is contrasted with Ms. Snyder's «brief but inopportune speedometer glance», it was wrong to apportion liability in the manner set out by the trial judge.

The appellants argued that the claims were based on conduct where the prime actors were foreign state officials, and they either implead the foreign states or would require the English courts to adjudicate upon foreign acts of state.

The Appellants argued s. 185 applied in the circumstances; that a cyclist should be considered the same as a motorist where there is a breach of the TSA or the Use of Highway and Rules of the Road Regulation, Alta Reg 304/2002 («Road Regulation») because both statutes impose the same duties on cyclists and motorists.

This was a case dealing with aboriginal rights in which the appellant argued that he was exercising an existing aboriginal right to fish for subsistence and ceremonial purposes.

The appellant argued that his counsel had effectively created evidence that was used against him at trial.

Citing Van Slee v. Canada Safeway Ltd. 2008 BCSC 107 (CanLII), the Appellant argued that, since Ms. Robinson «was unable to say exactly what she had slipped on», it was insufficient to simply say she had slipped on «something».

The Appellant argues the provisions are

On appeal, the appellants argued that the trial judge erred in finding liability based on the IPO - related statements because the respondents did not plead or argue at trial that such statements amounted to fraudulent misrepresentations.