Sentences with phrase «considering home court»

Considering home court advantage is worth about 2.5 - 3 points, accounting for Cousins value to the spread, the Pelicans should be around a 5 - 6 point dog on Thursday.

Not exact matches

Julie Allison, an attorney for the home, said in a statement Friday, «We will be addressing these matters in court, and we look forward to sharing all of the evidence that has been obtained and that will be considered in a fair and impartial manner by the judge.»

Last week, the Independent quoted a Home Office spokesperson who said officials were «considering» their next steps after a court injunction blocked the deportation of Florence and Opelo.

The Illinois Supreme Court is considering a case that could determine whether midwives who have not been trained as nurses may deliver babies in people's homes.

The court will consider the child's adjustment to his current home, school and community and how uprooting him might affect him, and the mental and physical health of all involved parties.

It will also consider the home secretary Jacqui Smith's appeal against a Court of Appeal ruling.

Donaldson added that the county had never even considered buying and expanding the court's current home on Lucas Avenue.

Other proposed changes include counting harassment actions aimed at multiple tenants as «repeated» harassment, and allowing a court to consider «non-rent fees» on a rent bill as a harassment tool designed to make a tenant leave their home.

Even transferring a property out of your name into someone else's name can not protect the property from the bankruptcy process, as the courts consider a transfer a «deemed disposition» — in other words, the property was as good as sold, and even if no money changes hands, the theoretical sale price will be determined based on the fair market value of the home.

Normally it is easier to get a secured loan than an unsecured loan, if you have a bad credit history or CCJ's (County Court Judgments) as the lender considers your home as enough security in case you default on your payments.

If you find yourself underwater on your home based on the balance of your first mortgage, additional mortgage liens are considered «undersecured» and are eligible to be removed or stripped by the bankruptcy court.

First there should be exceptions to when the dog IS allowed to threaten or bite, which would be considered provocation... those would include: a.) Legitimate self defense; b.) Defense of territory; c.) Defense of pack — human family, other home pets, and such; d.) Establishment of a reasonable pack order within the home; e.) Mouthing (which is not the same as being aggressive); f.) While being trained during lessons, and in the midst of long term maintenance training, to teach a dog to contain it's drives and aggression; g.) For legitimate police work — if a police force obtains ownership and control of the dog, then the court order should be rescinded and the dog be given a fresh start; h.) Legitimate hunting purposes (such as duck hunting).

criticized the Italian courts» failure to consider: (a) the risk that the child's separation from his mother might leave him with neurotic problems or an illness, (b) the father's failure to visit his son in Latvia since 2006 or (c) whether the father's home was suitable for a young child.

(1) the temperament and developmental needs of the child; (2) the capacity and the disposition of the parents to understand and meet the needs of the child; (3) the preferences of each child; (4) the wishes of the parents as to custody; (5) the past and current interaction and relationship of the child with each parent, the child's siblings, and any other person, including a grandparent, who may significantly affect the best interest of the child; (6) the actions of each parent to encourage the continuing parent child relationship between the child and the other parent, as is appropriate, including compliance with court orders; (7) the manipulation by or coercive behavior of the parents in an effort to involve the child in the parents» dispute; (8) any effort by one parent to disparage the other parent in front of the child; (9) the ability of each parent to be actively involved in the life of the child; (10) the child's adjustment to his or her home, school, and community environments; (11) the stability of the child's existing and proposed residences; (12) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved, except that a disability of a proposed custodial parent or other party, in and of itself, must not be determinative of custody unless the proposed custodial arrangement is not in the best interest of the child; (13) the child's cultural and spiritual background; (14) whether the child or a sibling of the child has been abused or neglected; (15) whether one parent has perpetrated domestic violence or child abuse or the effect on the child of the actions of an abuser if any domestic violence has occurred between the parents or between a parent and another individual or between the parent and the child; (16) whether one parent has relocated more than one hundred miles from the child's primary residence in the past year, unless the parent relocated for safety reasons; and (17) other factors as the court considers necessary.

The court may also consider how the child has adjusted to home, school, and community since the parents divorced and which parent is more likely to allow frequent contact with the noncustodial parent.

«This court believes that Congress might reasonably consider this inefficiency, as well as the extreme stress many nursing home residents and their families are under during the admissions process, as sufficient reason to decide that arbitration and the nursing home admissions process do not belong together,» the order states.

For example, the court will consider the size, location, and monthly costs associated with the home in which the parties» lived during their marriage.

and other one - world liberals who have persistently pressed judicial nominees in recent years to consider the legal opinions of foreign courts and other bodies when deciding cases here at home?

The plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant driver was negligent in parking the truck on the street in front of his home, considering the prior accident.

The Court also noted that there was «no evidence that anyone, including Christian Horizons» leadership, ever considered whether the prohibition on same sex relationships was necessary for the effective performance of the job of support worker in a home where there is no proselytizing and where residents are not required to be Evangelical Christians.»

In R (on the application of Aweys) v Birmingham City Council and other applications [2007] EWHC 52 (Admin), [2007] All ER (D) 230 (Jan) the Court of Appeal dismissed the authority's appeal and held that, upon finding a homeless person to be unintentionally homeless, eligible and in priority need, the «main housing duty» under HA 1996, s 193 (2) arose immediately and that the discharge of this duty could not be met by leaving the applicants in their existing homes: «the homeless at home», which the authority considered no longer reasonable for them to occupy, while waiting for an offer of permanent accommodation under the allocation scheme.

The Court held that it was not necessary for the appellant to show that every female prisoner required to live at an AP has suffered the detriment of being placed at an AP far from her home in order to establish a case of direct discrimination on grounds of sex, and considered that the risk of being placed far from home is much greater for women than for men due to the smaller numbers of female offenders, and the policy decision that the particular vulnerability of women required to live in an AP means that all APs should be single sex.

When making an order for exclusive possession of the home, the court will consider the best interests of the children as paramount, along with the financial position of the parties, and any instances of domestic violence affecting the safety and wellbeing of all parties involved.

Its prevalence means it is considered by the CPS to be one of the least serious criminal offences for the purpose of instructing prosecuting barristers, attracting a miserly fee (# 480 for a 2 - day trial requiring on average 20 hours» work (2 days at court plus a conservative 4 hours» preparation), so around # 24 gross an hour, of which I would take home about # 12), and is therefore prosecuted often by the least experienced in our ranks.

(3), the court may consider the child's adjustment to the home, school, religion and community.

In the United Kingdom High Court (Administrative) decision of DD v Secretary of State for Home Department [2014](«DD») Ouseley J was required to consider, on a preliminary basis, whether the imposition of a Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measure («TPIM»)(the successor of control orders) had violated the appellant's right to freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights («ECHR»).

In Whatcott the Supreme Court of Canada is also considering the interpretation of human rights legislation by a human rights tribunal and makes short work of the standard of review indicating that the law post-Dunsmuir clearly calls for deference to the interpretation by the tribunal of its home legislation on questions within its expertise.

While courts encourage parents to stay in touch with children during separations, behavior such as telephoning constantly or dropping by the other parent's home uninvited is considered disruptive.

In Tariq v Home Office the Court considered the permissibility and compatibility with European Union law and the European Convention of a closed material procedure authorised by certain statutory provisions.

In a case called Caine v Ferguson, the court was asked to consider whether a support - paying father of a child, who now had additional children to support, should be relieved of paying $ 11,000 in support arrears, because he acted as a stay - at - home dad while pursuing a fledgling part - time music career.

In McKee v. Reid's Heritage Homes Ltd. 6 the Ontario Court of Appeal considered Evans in the context of a 64 year independent contractor who had been selling homes for the defendant for 17 years when the defendant repudiated her contract and, in its place, offered the plaintiff a 6 month fixed term contract.

In Debora v. Debora, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that a property will be considered a matrimonial home even if it is owned by a company instead of directly by a spouse.

For example, the court would have to consider such details as what amounts had been spent on running wires to a customer's home (including securing rights of way, digging trenches or placing poles, and running wire underground or along poles), and how such costs should bee allocated among unbundled services.

For example, if a court is considering making an Order giving one spouse exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, the court is obliged under the Family Law Act to take into account the following:

Needless to say, courts don't take their powers lightly; whenever a court is poised to make an Order that deprives one spouse of his or her rights or interest in the matrimonial home, the court will consider a broad array of well - established factors and considerations.

In two seperate court cases over ten years, the men claimed they did not wish to be spouses of the women, they admitted to having lived in their homes, however because the women chose to remain legally married to their husbands, they did not consider them spouses.

The Home Secretary acted unlawfully in refusing to consider entry to the UK for a group of refugee families on the British Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus, the Court of Appeal has held.

The Court considered the original decision of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Mahmood [1981] QB 58 which adopted the nullity approach, rather than a deprivation of citizenship, which involved the purported grant of British citizenship to someone who was impersonating another real person.

In determining the amount and duration of maintenance the court shall consider: (A) the income and property of the respective parties including marital property distributed pursuant to subdivision five of this part; (B) the duration of the marriage and the age and health of both parties; (C) the present and future earning capacity of both parties; (D) the ability of the party seeking maintenance to become self - supporting and, if applicable, the period of time and training necessary therefor; (E) reduced or lost lifetime earning capacity of the party seeking maintenance as a result of having foregone or delayed education, training, employment, or career opportunities during the marriage; (F) the presence of children of the marriage in the respective homes of the parties; (G) the tax consequences to each party; (H) contributions and services of the party seeking maintenance as a spouse, parent, wage earner and homemaker, and to the career or career potential of the other party; (I) the wasteful dissipation of marital property by either spouse; (J) any transfer or encumbrance made in contemplation of a matrimonial action without fair consideration; and (K) any other factor which the court shall expressly find to be just and proper.

As in the example above of spousal or domestic assault, there is no special charge of «home invasion», but when there is a break and enter of an occupied dwelling house, Courts are required to consider that fact «aggravating,» which may increase the sentence or penalty.

The court considered itself bound by its earlier decision in R (Heather) v Leonard Cheshire Foundation [2002] EWCA Civ 366, [2002] 2 All ER 936, in which it was held that such homes are not acting as public authorities for the purposes of HRA 1998.

The issue that their lordships had to consider was raised in declaratory relief proceedings in the High Court, in which YL sought to engage human rights arguments to resist her removal from the home.

When considering whether either of the rights to respect was engaged, the court held that a distinction is to be drawn between a private home in which one freely resides and an institution.

And in California, the fair market value of the home and not the net value of the home is what the court considers.

Your liability is covered in and out of court by your insurance company when you are considered liable or negligent during a crash or incident at your home.

The real answer, however, considering that California courts traditionally favor the plaintiff in a home personal injury suit, is to get as much liability as you possibly can on that policy.

Can you tell me whether my Mountain Home Arkansas court will consider the GoToTrafficSchool.com Mountain Home Arkansas online defensive driving course an adequate substitute for a traditional classroom course?

Factors considered by the court when awarding custody may include the age of the parent and child, the physical and mental condition of each parent and child, the relationship existing between each parent and each child, the needs of the child, the role played by each parent in the upbringing and caring for the child, the home where the child will live, and the child's wishes if the child is of sufficient age, intelligence, and maturity to make such a decision.

Courts consider various factors; common ones include the child's age, bond with each parent, home stability and schedule consistency.

In the category of oppressive conduct, the court will consider whether the sale of the home would cause hardship to the opposing party or the parties» children.