Sentences with phrase «court limited the application»

The conservative precedents on which the Court limited the application of the Commerce Clause involved laws in which the regulation of interstate commerce was incidental to the law.

Not exact matches

The legislation «gives courts broad powers to consider a waiver application and makes clear that their discretion is not limited to a direct threat against a person's safety,» the release said.

A High Court in Accra has set February 8, 2018, to give a ruling on an injunction application filed by Exton Cubic Limited, challenging the revocation of their mining lease by the Lands and Natural Resources Minister.

Justice Hussein Baba - Yusuf of the Federal Capital Territory High Court sitting in Maitama, Abuja, on Thursday, October 19, 2017 struck out an application by a former Sokoto State Governor, Attahiru Dalhatu Bafarawa, his son, Sagir Attahiru and their family company, Dalhatu Investment Limited, seeking to separate their trial from that of former National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo Dasuki (rtd).

In his submission, counsel to the second defendant, Destra Investments Limited, allegedly owned by Metuh, Tochukwu Onwugbufor (SAN) said the application deals with the exercise of the court's discretion.

But both Metuh's lawyer, Mr. Emeka Etiaba (SAN), and counsel for Destra Investments Limited, Tochukwu Onwugbufor (SAN), urged the court to dismiss Tahir's application.

There is no time limit for making an application on these grounds but the court will look at whether you made the application «promptly».

To the fullest extent permitted by law, by your access to the Sites, you agree that: (i) any claim, dispute or cause of action regarding the Sites or these Terms shall be brought individually (NOT AS PART OF A CLASS ACTION) in the federal or state courts of the State of New York, and, such claim / dispute / cause of action will be resolved by a judge and THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL IS HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVED; (ii) you consent to the personal jurisdiction of such courts as the exclusive tribunal for adjudication of any such claim / dispute / cause of action, expressly waiving any right of forum non convenience, change of venue or like right; (iii) your recovery will be limited to actual out - of - pocket costs involved in specifically accessing the Sites (if any) and you expressly waive your right to all other forms of recovery, including by way of example only, punitive, consequential, indirect, incidental, special and exemplary damages as well as attorneys» fees for bringing such claim / dispute / cause of action; and (iv) the court shall apply the law of the State of New York in adjudicating any such claim / dispute / cause of action, except for the choice of law / conflict of law rules of the State of New York (or of any other jurisdiction which would result in the application of the law of any jurisdiction other than the State of New York).

The courts, unwilling to so restrict the concept, have extended its application well beyond those limits.

Domestic violence: the government announced that it will remove the five year time limit for evidence of domestic violence for applications for legal aid in family court hearings, as well as expanding the range of evidence which can be used to provide evidence of domestic violence.

While contractors had previously argued that negligence claims were barred by Florida's economic loss rule, the economic loss rule in Florida has been curtailed by the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Tiara Condominium Association v. Marsh & McClennan Companies, Inc. et al. and limited to application in product liability claims.

It is compulsory to attend a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting (MIAM) before making an application to the court for a financial order or an order relating to children, unless it is an emergency or other limited circumstance.

The Court disagreed, noting that the express mention canon was rebuttable and had limited application; it should not be employed where doing so would disregard the «underlying objective of the statute.»

The Court also held that the plaintiffs» recovery, even if sustained, would be limited to $ 20,000 by virtue of the application of the statutory cap on damage awards arising out of charitable activities under G.L. c. 231, § 85K.

Essentially, the Court of Appeal recognized that Reeb would be better off accepting the plaintiff's settlement offer under the $ 1 million limit of his mother's home owner's policy, than continuing to pursue the application to determine if there was any coverage in excess of the limit, under the two additional insurance policies.

The court should be slow to entertain an application for judicial review as an alternative to an appeal by way of case stated just because the time limit for an appeal has been missed, even if the fault lies with the claimant's solicitors rather than with the claimant personally.

In 405341 Ontario Limited v. Midas Canada Inc., the court considered, inter alia, whether an Ontario choice of law clause in a franchise agreement resulted in the application of Ontario's franchise legislation, the Arthur Wishart Act (the «Act»), to the franchise relationship.

As the Supreme Court in Morguard emphasized, however, the Act does not in any way limit the far larger application of comity in regard to orders and judgments not covered by the Act (i.e. non-money judgments or foreign judgments other than those select U.S. states).

In short the Court held that all parties of record have standing to make submissions during these applications although the standing is limited.

a Canadian energy company in an ICC arbitration claim arising out of the sale and purchase of a Kazakhstan limited liability partnership whose primary assets were licences to produce three oil fields in the Caspian, and in a related freezing injunction application in the English High Court

The standard position is that the Claimant should pay the Defendant's costs of the application limited to # 250, however, if a court determines that a Defendant is at fault for the Claimant having to needlessly issue the application, then a court will usually make the Defendant pay the legal costs of # 250, plus the court issue fee.

Legal principle must try «to keep the law abreast of the society in which [the judges] live and work»: «If the law should impose upon the process of «growing up» fixed limits where nature knows only a continuous process, the price would be artificiality and a lack of realism in an area where the law must be sensitive to human development and social change... Unless and until Parliament should think fit to intervene, the courts should establish a principle flexible enough to enable justice to be achieved by its application to the particular circumstances proved by the evidence placed before them.»

penalizes the defendant for engaging in public participation «plaintiff» means a person who initiates or maintains a proceeding against a defendant; «proceeding» means any action, suit, matter, cause, counterclaim, appeal, or originating application that is brought in the Supreme Court or the Provincial Court, but does not include a prosecution for an offence or a crime; «public interest» means the whole of the subject matter invites public attention, or a matter in which the public has some substantial concern because it affects the welfare of citizens, or one to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached; «public participation» means communication or conduct aimed at influencing public opinion, or promoting further lawful action by the public or any government body, in relation to an issue of public interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper purpose.

As noted above, in ENRC v. Dechert the Court of Appeal has confirmed that the concept of limited waiver is of general application, designed to ensure that the loss of legal professional privilege (given its fundamental importance) is limited to that which is necessary to protect other interests.

The government announced that it will remove the five year time limit for evidence of domestic violence for applications for legal aid in family court hearings, as well as expanding the range of evidence which can be used to provide evidence of domestic violence.

Banner & Witcoff partner Bradley Wright says in an e-mail to Legal Times: «In a relief to some, the court struck down the PTO's attempt to limit the number of «continuing» applications that an applicant may file, concluding that the patent statute expressly permitted such filings.

This applies both where that advice is limited in time, eg until after a criminal defence statement has been filed and served and, worse still, the advice is given not to make such a response at all; • (f) the date on which a party to care proceedings is to file and serve a criminal defence statement in linked criminal proceedings is wholly irrelevant to the court's determination of the date on which that party should file and serve a response to threshold and / or to file and serve a narrative statement in the care proceedings; • (g) the mere fact that a party is ordered to file and serve a response to threshold and / or to file and serve a narrative statement before the date a criminal defence statement is to be filed and served in criminal proceedings is not a ground for failing to comply with the former order; • (h) it [is not] a ground for an application to extend the time for compliance with an order to file and serve a response to threshold and / or to file and serve a narrative statement until a date after the criminal defence statement has been filed and served; and • (i) any issue about alleged prejudice to a defendant in criminal proceedings based on him being required to file and serve a response to threshold and / or to file and serve a narrative statement before the date of a criminal defence statement is to be filed and served, or at all, only arises and is only potentially relevant if and when an application is made by the police and / or a co-accused for statements and documents filed in the family proceedings to be disclosed into linked criminal proceedings [see Re C (A Minor)(Care Proceedings: Disclosure)[1997] Fam 76, [1997] 2 WLR 322, sub nom Re EC (Disclosure of Material)[1996] 2 FLR 725, CA].

In introducing this four part analysis, the Supreme Court was critical of the application of previous «test» for obviousness from Beloit (Beloit Canada Ltd. v. Valmet OY (1986), 8 C.P.R. (3d) 289), saying, «the courts have often tended to treat the word formulation of Beloit as if it were a statutory prescription that limits the obviousness inquiry.»

Following confirmation that Princess Tessy and Prince Louis of Luxembourg will be launching their financial proceedings in the London courts, an application was brought before Mr Justice McDonald in the High Court by Prince Louis to limit what the Princess could publish about the proceedings.

This court abolished, in premises liability actions involving a slip and fall on snow and ice, the distinction between natural and unnatural accumulations of snow and ice, which had constituted an exception to the general rule of premises liability that a property owner owes a duty to all lawful visitors to use reasonable care to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances [370 - 384]; further, this court saw no reason to limit its holding to prospective application [384 - 386].

Samuel Linn, «An Analytical Index of Parallel Reference to the Cases Adjudged in the Several Courts of Pennsylvania, with an Appendix Containing a Collection of Cases Overruled, Denied, Doubted or Limited in their Application» Philadelphia, Kay, 1857.

In short, the court ultimately recognized the continuing application of the doctrine with only certain limited exceptions: fraud, non-innocent misrepresentations, an implied warranty of habitability for newly constructed homes, and a duty to disclose latent defects.

Lastly, the court has a discretion to extend time limits in appropriate circumstances without the necessity of a separate application: Rule 22 - 4 (2).

The court interpreted this provision broadly; it permitted the application to be made outside the seven day time limit imposed in old Rule 39 (27), which is for the most part identical to the new Rule 12 - 6 (5).

With respect to the impact (if any) of the relating back presumption to the included offence, the Court of Appeal found nothing in the language of s. 258 (1)(c), or the purpose underlying that provision, supported limiting the application of the presumption of identity to the offence expressly spelled out in the charge.

The material is well organized, easy to follow, and clearly addresses the various applications of limited scope to multiple aspects of family law practice, from document assistance, negotiation coaching, case management, limited scope court appearances and coaching of clients who are mediating their disputes.

The Court of Appeal disagreed with the application judge and unanimously decided that the Regulation does limit Mr. Bracken's rights under s. 2 (b) of the Charter, but nevertheless held those limits were saved under s. 1.

The Court of Appeal's decision in Sechelt was significant because it demonstrated that IJI was still alive and well in relation to the lands reserved head of s. 91 (24) following the efforts of the Supreme Court of Canada in a series of cases including Canadian Western Bank v Alberta, 2007 SCC 22 and British Columbia (Attorney General) v Lafarge Canada Inc, 2007 SCC 23 to limit the application of the IJI doctrine.

A more recent decision from the British Columbia Court of Appeal takes pains to insist that federalism continues to limit the application of provincial enactments to «lands reserved for Indians», even if this may not necessarily be the case for rights protected by section 35.

-- Yukos CIS Investment Limited v Yukos Hydrocarbons Investments Limited & Ors (Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal and Commercial Court of the British Virgin Islands) Acted (led by Steven Berry QC) for the respondents in successfully resisting applications by Yukos CIS including to appoint a receiver over the respondent companies and for freezing injunctions against them.

We urged the bright line rule that the Court adopted in its holding today — «Amici respectfully submit that the Court should affirm the result reached by the Second Circuit and establish a bright line rule limiting the application of rule 10 (b) to securities bought or sold in the United States.»

Key Singapore: applications to the Commercial Court under sections 67,68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 in relation to issues of time limits for lodging notice of appeal where there has been a private submission to arbitration in a salvage case and whether it is necessary to lodge a separate notice of appeal in relation to an award on costs only.

On December 28, 2017, the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that if the Legislature had intended to limit the timeframe for eligibility of nonprofit organizations» applications, «it certainly knew how to do so.&rCourt affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that if the Legislature had intended to limit the timeframe for eligibility of nonprofit organizations» applications, «it certainly knew how to do so.&rcourt's decision, holding that if the Legislature had intended to limit the timeframe for eligibility of nonprofit organizations» applications, «it certainly knew how to do so.»

Its application should be limited to cases where the court determines the parties are high conflict and a Parallel Parenting Plan Court Order is necessary to stop ongoing high conflict that is endangering the well - being of the ccourt determines the parties are high conflict and a Parallel Parenting Plan Court Order is necessary to stop ongoing high conflict that is endangering the well - being of the cCourt Order is necessary to stop ongoing high conflict that is endangering the well - being of the child.

Following her review of the materials filed by the plaintiff's lawyer and her thorough analysis of the rules governing court approval of settlements for persons under disability, Madam Justice Corthorn noted that there were a number of procedural and substantive problems with the materials before her, including but not limited to the fact that the application record was not served on the respondent and no factum had been filed by the applicant.

Unlike statutory time limits which expressly apply and about the application of which there is no discretion — except where LA 1980 expressly provides — where the court is asked to apply a limitation period by analogy it is open to it to refuse to do so where there are circumstances rendering this unjust (see ICF Spry The Principles of Equitable Remedies, 6th ed, pp 419 — 20).

As the immunity is such a potent shield, the courts are circumspect in its application by limiting it to bona fide quasi-judicial bodies only.

The function of the Court of Appeal on an application for permission to appeal in a residence and contact case is limited to a review of the decision of the judge to see whether a prospective appellant has an arguable case that the judge's order was plainly wrong:

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Court of Appeal (Wallman v. Gill) addressing this reality but also providing comments on the limits of when the trial management process is an appropriate forum for such an application.

HELD While decisions of a Home Secretary under the scheme are susceptible to judicial review, intervention by the courts should be highly guarded and limited to cases where there is an issue about the reach and meaning of a policy where a minister, in his application and / or interpretation of it, strays outside the reasonable range of meaning, or where there is ambiguity.