Sentences with phrase «court opinion notes»

The court opinion notes that Fisher left a «journal» in his office, in which he expressed his intent to «essentially abandon -LSB--RSB- his life as he knew it.»

«Nothing... reveals why plaintiff was reinstated to his position if citizenship was a disqualifying factor,» the court opinion noted.

Not exact matches

«I think United is likely to be found on legally solid ground, but has already lost in the court of public opinion, and will pay dearly for it,» Quinn said according to Reuters, noting that Dao could still get a substantial settlement from the airline.

Portugal's Superior Magistrates Council, an oversight body, said it had taken note of the «vivid criticism from broad sections of public opinion», but added courts are independent and it could not intervene, even when faced with «archaic, inappropriate or unfortunate» comments by judges.

But in keeping with Eugene V. Rostow's characterization of the contemporary Supreme Court as a «vital national seminar,» it is worth noting that the original charge to the Court was only that it render an aye or a nay.44 It quickly began handing down written opinions also, however, and under Marshall began the practice of trying for a single majority opinion, which gave «judicial pronouncements a forceful unity they had formerly lacked.

«That this House notes the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in Hirst v the United Kingdom in which it held that there had been no substantive debate by members of the legislature on the continued justification for maintaining a general restriction on the right of prisoners to vote; acknowledges the treaty obligations of the UK; is of the opinion that legislative decisions of this nature should be a matter for democratically - elected lawmakers; and supports the current situation in which no prisoner is able to vote except those imprisoned for contempt, default or on remand.»

«The court notes that there was opinion testimony offered to the effect that (1) but for being asked by Henry Wojtasek, Synor probably would not have hired Meghan Ortt, (2) that she had a «no - show job,» and (3) that Synor was a conduit for funds to be paid to her,» the judge wrote of the grand jury testimony he inspected.

Now, in his 15 - page opinion for the court, Chief Judge David Sentelle notes that the court's earlier ruling relied on a legal principle known as Chevron that says that if a statute is ambiguous, courts must defer to the agency's interpretation.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court determined that Endrew's «making some progress,» found acceptable by the lower courts, was not «reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits,» noting that it was barely better than «sitting idly in classrooms waiting until they were old enough to drop out.»

Justice Breyer noted in his opinion, «Under these circumstances, the more detailed the Court's supervision becomes, the more likely its law will engender further disputes among teachers and students.»

But in ruling it is unconstitutional to fund operations of Type 2 charter schools with funds appropriated to the MFP for parish and city school systems, Fields noted that the appeals court sent the case back to him for further proceedings «consistent with this opinion.»

...» Secondly, Title VII itself, especially through Section 704 (a)-- as the circuit court's opinion in Emporium Capwell noted — specifically protects the right to protest against racial discrimination in employment by protecting employee protests from employer retaliation.

It should be noted that under Spanish law, a member of the Court may write both the majority decision and a personal opinion.

This week, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin also suspended Forstrom's license to practice law for one year, but noted in its opinion that Forstrom had presented some new information during the Wisconsin proceedings.

Noting that would add up to 67 percent of the estate's total value, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made no bones about its opinion on the fee request, saying that it represented «unnecessary lawyering.»

While most of the curriculum at Harvard during this time consisted of lecture and student recitation, skills development was also provided in the form of weekly moot courts, during which students argued questions of law before professors and submitted occasional written disputations on legal subjects.121 Although Stearns had previously used moot courts in his teaching at Harvard, Story and Ashmun refined them.122 Cases were handed out the week before argument, and two counsel were assigned to each side.123 The cases would then be argued the next Friday, with the other students taking notes of the argument; the professor in charge that week would issue a written opinion.124

Mauro notes that one of the winning court opinions involved the baggy pants style of fashion that we've discussed here, but in a different context.

As I noted here, the Charney versus S&C litigation differs substantially from similar suits (if they were brought at all), because they're being covered extensively in blogs and aired in the court of public opinion.

In addressing the employee's dishonesty, the Court noted that «there is a significant difference, particularly when considering cause for termination, between an employee being dishonest with an employer and an employee giving an opinion, even an overly optimistic opinion, that turns out to be wrong.»

The appeals court noted the comments in a footnote at the end of the opinion.

The opinion also noted how the bar had «disregarded the findings of the Special Committee» but that «having considered the bar's proposals, the comments filed, the bar's response, and having had the benefit of oral argument, the court adopts the amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar as proposed by the bar.»

But, Toobin points out, Ginsburg took the rare step of articulating her dissent from the bench (she did not read her dissenting opinion, but summarized Ledbetter's plight in lay terms) and concluded saying «[t] oday the ball again lies in Congress» court... [T] he legislature has cause to note and to correct this court's parsimonious reading of Title VII.»

I probably should have noted this when it came out, but on October 28, 2015 the South Carolina Supreme Court, in Hudson v. Hudson, 414 S.C. 352, 778 S.E. 2d 482 (2015), dismissed as improvidently granted the writ of certiorari it issued to review the Court of Appeals opinion in Hudson v. Hudson, 408 S.C. 76, 757 S.E. 2d 727 (Ct..

He notes that at the oral argument of the case, one of the plaintiffs» lawyers proudly described himself as a «bounty hunter,» to which the court in its opinion remarked, «We will have more to say about exactly who Proposition 65 was created for later, but it wasn't bounty hunters.»

I note as well, the dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court.

He notes that, in his experience, «the court of public opinion is often an accurate sounding board,» and expresses his view that «trial courts fundamentally assess cases on a smell test, which is basically what Sattler has done in his post.»

In his opinion, Magistrate Judge Treece specifically noted that, «With the advent of software, predictive coding, spreadsheets, and similar advances, the time and cost to produce large reams of documents can be dramatically reduced... the Court is more convinced than ever that [the subpoena] is not... an overwhelming and incomprehensible burden.»

Posts include links to legal writing resources, offer editing tips and note court opinions in which the judges writing them had a little fun.

However, as AG Wahl notes in his opinion in X, adopting a very narrow approach to the conditions attached to the acte clair doctrine, «would seem in contradiction both with reality and with the spirit of cooperation which characterises the relationship between the Court of Justice and the national (supreme) courts» (paragraph 64).

In Garcetti v. Ceballos, Goldstein notes that Justice Souter ended up writing no majority opinions from the Court's October sitting, while Justice Kennedy ended up writing two, of which Garcetti was one.

In addition to issues of quality, Bruce Green has noted that ethics opinions have also come under criticism for dealing with «trivial subjects» and for lacking persuasive value with courts (with respect to this later point, however, Green notes that there is some disagreement in the literature as to whether this is actually true).

The Court further noted that some types of hearsay evidence in expert reports, even if not independently proven at trial, does not necessarily nullify the experts opinion.

In addition to incorporating tables, indices, and annotations — features introduced by his predecessor — Cranch supplemented the Court's opinions with «faithful summar [ies] of the arguments of counsel» and, in his first and fourth volumes, extensive appendices of notes.

She notes that the North Carolina Supreme Court can reverse a Court of Appeals decision by adopting the dissenting opinion.

In fact, the Texas Supreme Court devoted a section of its opinion to making that very point, noting that its application of proportionality principles aligned practice under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure with practice under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Of note, both the trial and appellate court opinions upheld the enforceability of exculpatory provisions in the LLC agreement pursuant to Delaware's strong public policy favoring freedom of contract in LLC agreements.

On the back of the card, Mauro notes, «are a blizzard of stats, including the number of his opinions, dissents and citations by name by lower courts.»

[Note: it's likely that people accessing the Supreme Court pentalogy on copyright released this week will have used the SCC site hosted by Lexum, which probably explains why they're not among the top three opinions.]

But, as Judge Gruender noted in his concurring opinion, the question is not whether the Tax Court made the determination; Judge Gruender argued that the Tax Court did in fact make a determination that the partners» outside basis in the partnership was zero, but that this determination must be «determined at the partner level.»

In this article, Ms. Coggiola notes the Supreme Court of South Carolina «has issued four or five opinions that are strictly on civility, including three in one year and one for a lawyer hitting an opponent in a deposition.»

Please note that the decisions that appear on this website are not the official versions of the court's entry orders or opinions.

Before the Supreme Court, we note both the specific issue and the area of the law involved, the prevailing party and the vote, the writers and length of all opinions, the number of amicus curiae briefs and who each amicus supported, and of course each Justice's vote.

When I blogged on the May 14, 2014 Court of Appeals opinion in the case of Mick - Skaggs v. Skaggs, I noted the curious decision to change the ground for divorce from no - fault to mutual fault.

Note also that three Justices wrote concurring opinions expressing concern that other Supreme Court precedent requires courts to give a high degree of deference to a federal agency's interpretations.

The district court judge denied the motion noting that the defendants» experts could provide any cause - of - death opinions that had been previously disclosed.

The Court's opinion in SCA Hygiene did note that an accused infringer can still defend against a claim of infringement based on the defense of equitable estoppel.

Rather, the panel noted that the district court judge focused only on whether the challenged opinions had previously been disclosed.

The majority opinion attempted to finesse the issue by holding that the family court could note the parties» prior informal arrangement in reaching its custody determination.

As Judge David Campbell, former Chair of the Advisory Committee, noted in a recent opinion, «Despite this clear change, many courts continue to use the phrase.

Some courts offer multiple procedural defenses in multi-section opinions; others dispose of a case on one procedural ground while noting that other possible excuses remain in reserve.