Sentences with phrase «court justices causes»

Not exact matches

The inquiry Ramirez intends to launch could uncover data and evidence to be used by Congress, federal courts, the Department of Justice and other agencies to combat the harm caused by patent trolls.

So here's a way for the Dreamers to be protected, President Trump to be responsive to public opinion and for the Department of Justice to devote its resources to better causes (like keeping AR - 15s out of the hands of crazy people)-- end the appeals and allow the court rulings to stand.

Not one executive of any major Wall Street firm that caused the financial crash in 2008 through fraudulent activities was prosecuted by the U.S. Justice Department — which was headed at the time by law partners from Covington & Burling — the Big Tobacco law firm that was singled out in a Federal Court decision for hiding the deadly effects of cigarette smoke for decades.

Since Rogers» ads had been in the marketplace since 2008 and Bell could not prove these claims caused «irreparable harm» to the company, Superior Court Justice Darla A. Wilson struck down Bell's injunction, writing that «there is no justification for the court to interfere in the advertising war between these two large corporations.&rCourt Justice Darla A. Wilson struck down Bell's injunction, writing that «there is no justification for the court to interfere in the advertising war between these two large corporations.&rcourt to interfere in the advertising war between these two large corporations.»

While Jesner suggests that five justices likely would rule that the federal courts should not recognize an ATS cause of action against American corporations for their overseas activities, several federal appeals courts have exhibited little willingness to limit the scope of ATS liability unless directly ordered to do so by the Supreme Court.

The causes, no doubt, are many: For example, the Court attached itself at the outset, in its 1947 Everson decision, to Justice Hugo Black's superficial and selective account of the religion clause's history and purposes.

Brandeis was among the first justices educated in the new «case - law method» pioneered by Harvard's Christopher Langdell in the 1870s, and he was the first justice to reach the Court with a long record as an advocate for progressive causes.

If the argument here is correct, the two developments result from some of the same causes: The American kind of church - state separation meant no church monopolized religious symbols; courts were called upon to articulate ultimate purpose and justice; and judges felt little ambivalence in doing so.

The two are before Justice CJ Honyenuga, a Court of Appeal Judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court Judge, for wilfully causing financial loss to the state

The embattled judge is arguing before the court that «despite the pendency of these two applications before this Court, [Justice Torkonoo] in outright disrespect of this Court caused a hearing notice to be served on me to appear before her on 3rd December, 2015, for the hearing of the same contempt application which [she] had already dealt with on the 28th and 29th September, 2015 and dismissed.&rcourt that «despite the pendency of these two applications before this Court, [Justice Torkonoo] in outright disrespect of this Court caused a hearing notice to be served on me to appear before her on 3rd December, 2015, for the hearing of the same contempt application which [she] had already dealt with on the 28th and 29th September, 2015 and dismissed.&rCourt, [Justice Torkonoo] in outright disrespect of this Court caused a hearing notice to be served on me to appear before her on 3rd December, 2015, for the hearing of the same contempt application which [she] had already dealt with on the 28th and 29th September, 2015 and dismissed.&rCourt caused a hearing notice to be served on me to appear before her on 3rd December, 2015, for the hearing of the same contempt application which [she] had already dealt with on the 28th and 29th September, 2015 and dismissed.»

Trump met at the White House with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and the top Republican and Democrat on the Judiciary Committee to discuss filling the court's lingering vacancy caused by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia more than 11 months ago.

Because in the Peskova ruling of May 2017 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided that a bird strike was an «extraordinary event» under EU flight compensation regulation 261 - with the result that airlines didn't have to pay compensation, just as they don't for delays caused by lightning strikes or severe weather events.

But the court's decision in Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) v Dr Bukola Saraki, which allowed a stay of proceedings before the CCT despite the provisions of sections 306 and 396 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJ), 2015, has caused something of a storm.

Speaking to London branch of the NPP's Communication Team at the NPP Old Meeting Place on Seven Sisters Street in London in July this year, Sammy Awuku virtually brought the credibility of some of the Supreme Court justices who are about to give their ruling in the election petition case into disrepute when he said emphatically that quiet a number of them were favourable towards the cause of the NPP.

The court, which had Mr Justice Francis Korbieh and Mr Justice L. L. Mensah as the other panel members, was also of the opinion that all the grounds upon which the state accused Woyome of causing financial loss to the state failed before them.

The High Court, presided over by Mr Justice John Ajet - Nasam, had acquitted and discharged Woyome on two counts of defrauding by false pretences, contrary to Section 131 (1) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960, Act 29, and causing financial loss to the State, contrary to Section 179 A (3)(a) of the Criminal Offences Act (1960) Act 29.

The Brennan Center for Justice, Citizens Union, Common Cause New York, the League of Women Voters of New York City, and New York Public Interest Research Group submitted a friend - of - the - court brief this week, urging the federal district court hearing the case to uphold the law.

The court said there was a miscarriage of justice when an Accra Fast Track High Court on June 18.2008, found him guilty on three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of GH cents 230,000 to the state and another count of misapplying public propcourt said there was a miscarriage of justice when an Accra Fast Track High Court on June 18.2008, found him guilty on three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of GH cents 230,000 to the state and another count of misapplying public propCourt on June 18.2008, found him guilty on three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of GH cents 230,000 to the state and another count of misapplying public property.

In 2008, however, Ecuador filed a lawsuit at the International Court of Justice at The Hague, alleging the Colombian spraying had caused damage to people, crops, and the environment on Ecuadorian ground and demanding indemnification and prevention of further contamination.

«Vaccines can be blamed for illness without scientific proof,» read many headlines about the European Court of Justice's (ECJ's) ruling on the case of a French man who claimed that a hepatitis B vaccine caused his multiple sclerosis (MS).

What takes us and her there is the tale of how the world - beating New York Times got the scoop on Ellsberg's «Pentagon Papers,» how paranoid, profane and punitive President Richard Nixon (glimpsed in silhouette, heard on the infamous «tapes») and his Justice Department stopped it, and how the Washington Post stepped in, found its edge, voice and spine and took up cause, fighting (with the Times) all the way to the Supreme Court for «the public's right to know.»

Upon receipt of the copy of such request it shall be the duty of the chief justice of the circuit or the presiding circuit judge, as the case may be, to designate immediately three judges in such circuit, of whom at least one shall be a circuit judge and another of whom shall be a district judge of the court in which the proceeding was instituted, to hear and determine such case, and it shall be the duty of the judges so designated to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date, to participate in the hearing and determination thereof, and to cause the case to be in every way expedited.

A unit of the Justice Department that oversees bankruptcy court cases, the U.S. Trustees Program, said in its 2010 annual report that there were «pervasive and longstanding problems regarding mortgage loan servicing,» which «are not merely «technical» but cause real harm to homeowners in bankruptcy.»

THOMAS J. MOYER, Chief Justice, Ohio Supreme Court 1987 - 2010 «The trial court cited the substantial evidence supporting its conclusion that pit bulls, compared to other breeds, cause a disproportionate amount of danger to peCourt 1987 - 2010 «The trial court cited the substantial evidence supporting its conclusion that pit bulls, compared to other breeds, cause a disproportionate amount of danger to pecourt cited the substantial evidence supporting its conclusion that pit bulls, compared to other breeds, cause a disproportionate amount of danger to people.

On April 10, 2018, John O'Nabigon Jr. pled guilty in an Ontario Court of Justice in Thunder Bay to the Criminal Code charges of willfully causing unnecessary suffering, and willfully neglecting to provide suitable and adequate care of 31 dogs, as well as killing three dogs without willful and lawful cause.

The two were charged in federal court for «conspiring to cause damage to protected computers,» and the Department of Justice has also seized four domain names including lizardsquad.org.

In a dismissal of the questionable connection between Koch Industries and Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto recently defended the dubious political wrangling of the Koch brothers while chastizing its critics, namely Common Cause.

Sotos had requested $ 20,000 in damages but the court did not find that Mohammed had suffered mental distress, however Justice Lederer stated that, «In the circumstances I accept that this action unnecessarily caused Katie Mohammed stress that affected her day to day life.»

A recent High Court decision in Horsham Properties Group v Clark [2008] EWHC 2327 (Ch), [2008] All ER (D) 58 (Oct) has caused such concern that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has started an urgent review into mortgage remedies, and how the law protects borrowers in mortgage arrears.

In written reasons, the Court of Appeal agreed the appellant was a vexatious litigant; had caused a public nuisance; that the AG had standing to seek an injunction to prevent the public nuisance from continuing; that the court had inherent jurisdiction to control its own process; and that the activities of the appellant interfered with the administration of jusCourt of Appeal agreed the appellant was a vexatious litigant; had caused a public nuisance; that the AG had standing to seek an injunction to prevent the public nuisance from continuing; that the court had inherent jurisdiction to control its own process; and that the activities of the appellant interfered with the administration of juscourt had inherent jurisdiction to control its own process; and that the activities of the appellant interfered with the administration of justice.

Specifically, the AG sought declarations that the appellant was vexatious; had caused a public nuisance; had abused the court process; and had compromised the administration of justice.

Respondent's conduct, which resulted in the unjustified detention of the defendants for several hours and the incarceration of 14 defendants in the County Jail, caused irreparable damage to public confidence in the fair and proper administration of justice in his court....

State Supreme Court Justice N. Patrick Crooks died of natural causes in his court chamCourt Justice N. Patrick Crooks died of natural causes in his court chamcourt chambers.

First, the Court and proponents of the LLLT program stated that, based on the Civil Legal Needs Study findings, the high cost of lawyers is the primary cause of the justice gap.

Assume that Mr. Grutman's proposed test is as follows: «If the state long - arm statute is satisfied and defendant has engaged in purposeful conduct directed at the forum state out of which conduct the cause of action arises, and that conduct satisfies the minimum contacts under which substantial justice and fair play make it reasonable to hail defendant into court there, and the forum state has an interest in providing a forum to the plaintiff, then the forum has personal jurisdiction over the defendant for that cause of action.»

[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.

A contract is a contract and, as expressed by Chief Justice Winkler on behalf of a unanimous court, «From a practical perspective, it is worth repeating that if parties to an employment agreement specifying a fixed amount of damages intend for mitigation to apply upon termination without cause, they must express that intention in clear and specific language in the contract.»

In a recent ruling from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice sitting at Ottawa, El - Hawary v. 1202827 Ontario Inc, 2014 ONSC 5265 (CanLII), the Honourable Justice Timothy Ray held that moral damages were not appropriate without medical evidence as to the cause of the plaintiff's suffering....

«(1) On an application for relief from any sanction imposed for a failure to comply with any rule... the court will consider all the circumstances including --(a) the interests of the administration of justice; (b) whether the application for relief has been made promptly; (c) whether the failure to comply was intentional; (d) whether there is a good explanation for the failure; (e) the extent to which the party in default has complied with other rules,...; (f) whether the failure to comply was caused by the party or the party's legal representative; (g) whether the hearing date... can still be met if relief is granted; (h) the effect which the failure to comply had on each party; and (i) the effect which the granting of relief would have on each party or a child whose interest the court considers relevant.

The court is to have regard to all the circumstances of the case including: the withdrawal grounds relied on and whether or not new evidence has come to light which was not available when the admission was made; the conduct of the parties including any conduct which led to the admission being made, any prejudice that may be caused if the admission is withdrawn and if withdrawal is refused, the stage in the proceedings at which the application to withdraw is made, in particular in relation to the trial date; the prospects of success (if withdrawal) for the claimant; and the interests of the administration of justice.

Before Ontario Superior Court Associate Chief Justice Frank Marrocco this week, CCLA's legal team, led by Jonathan Lisus of Lax O'Sullivan Lisus Gottlieb LLP and Michael Rosenberg of McCarthy Tétrault LLP in Toronto, brought expert evidence as to «the significant harm» caused by solitary confinement.

Justice Perell especially relied on Central Trust v. Rafuse, where the Supreme Court of Canada held that a mortgage lender's cause of action against the lawyers arose when the validity of the mortgage was first challenged, NOT when the mortgage was first put on title, and NOT when a court finally declared that the mortgage was Court of Canada held that a mortgage lender's cause of action against the lawyers arose when the validity of the mortgage was first challenged, NOT when the mortgage was first put on title, and NOT when a court finally declared that the mortgage was court finally declared that the mortgage was void.

Costa Rica v. Nicaragua (Certain Activities Carried Out By Nicaragua in the Border Area)(Reparation Phase): instructed as junior counsel to Costa Rica in claim for reparation before International Court of Justice arising from, inter alia, environmental harm caused by breach of international obligations by Nicaragua.

However, on June 26, 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released its decision in R. v. Kazenelson, 2015 ONSC 3639 (CanLII) in which Mr. Kazenelson was convicted of four counts of criminal negligence causing death and one count of criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

Represented the Republic of Ecuador before the International Court of Justice in the Case Concerning Aerial Spraying Along the Border (Ecuador v. Columbia) concerning environmental damage and related human rights claims caused by Columbia's spraying of herbicides near the international border.

Represented the Republic of Nicaragua before the International Court of Justice in the Case Concerning Construction of a Road in Costa Rica (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) in asserting claims for environmental damage caused by Costa Rica's construction of a highway adjacent to the San Jan River.

In finding that the homeowners» loss of property value had been caused by Inco's operations, Superior Court Justice Henderson accepted that any environmental contamination in a community will negatively affect the property values in the affected area.

Aaron recently read an article noting that the majority of Supreme Court justices are millionaires, a fact which caused some consternation that the justices were out of touch.

These causes of action were therefore properly dismissed by him, for the reasons he gives,» wrote Court of Appeal Justice Robert Blair.

Take for example, the 2012 Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision, Al - Dandachi v. SNC - Lavalin Inc., in which the defendant brought a motion to strike out all references in a plaintiff's statement of claim relating to his human rights claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.