Sentences with phrase «court opinions set»

Beginning in 1991, a series of Florida Supreme Court opinions set out to create separate court division for families going through divorce, coordinate actions among the judges, and resolve family law issues in a fair, timely, efficient, and cost - effective method.

Never before has there been a published New Jersey state court opinion setting out the factors a court must consider in evaluating whether a class action settlement should be determined to be fair and adequate.

Not exact matches

Court of Appeals Judge Eugene Pigott issued a separate opinion in the cases, concurring with the results but saying the state's definition of parenthood should properly be set by the legislature.

The opinion, issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, strikes down a legislative provision, first enacted in 1986 and renewed numerous times since, which sets a goal that 5 percent of federal defense contracting dollars each fiscal year must be awarded to certain entities, including small disadvantaged companies.

Schneiderman set himself up as Trump's foil, taking on the president and his agenda in both the courts and the court of public opinion.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to issue its first major opinion on abortion in nearly 10 years on Monday, closing out a tumultuous term marred by the absence of one its judges.

Jurors weren't allowed to hear testimony that Bill Cosby's chief accuser was once hooked on hallucinogenic mushrooms or had her sights set on becoming a millionaire, but that hasn't stopped the defense from airing the explosive claims about Andrea Constand in the court of public opinion.

Then I'd dip into how inaccurate eye witness accounts are — all as a set up for court room writing prompt (heavy on the fact vs. opinion side of things)

They do not constitute binding precedent because they are not rendered in an adversarial setting like a lawsuit, but, as the personal opinions of the sitting justices of the state Supreme Court, they can be persuasive.

We have already covered the opinion handed down by Advocate General Cruz Villalón (see here), who suggested that the Court should allow Article 27 of the Charter in combination with the Directive to be applicable and to exclude thus the application of the national norm that was contrary to EU law despite the setting of proceedings between private parties.

In doing so, that court set aside precedent from 2006 that many regarded as a controlling opinion on same - sex marriage bans: Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, an Eighth Circuit opinion upholding Nebraska's ban.

He asserts that when courts set out vague, multi-pronged tests, the opinion might be more literary or imaginative, but the tests, when applied, lead to less predictable results.

For the reasons given by the Court of Appeal, we are all of the opinion that the exclusion from the insurance policy based on art. 2402 of the Civil Code of Québec may not be set up against the heirs of the insured, as that article must, even in light of s. 34 (1) of the federal Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I - 21, be interpreted having regard to the principles of interpretation that apply in the area of insurance law so as to favour the precision and certainty of the grounds for exclusion in such matters.

To that end, in that 2011 opinion, he set out his first listing of the most productive federal courts, covering the year 2009.

About 2150 volumes of the Federal Supplement which sets forth selected federal trial court opinions.

In a newspaper article in The Globe and Mail, former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Louise Arbour, insightfully set out her opinion of how the Charter helped define Canada.

The award, based on the research and opinions of thousands of lawyers, recognises Essex Court as the pre-eminent set for international arbitration.

However, if the Court of Justice agrees with the Opinion, then the German courts may rule that the lower courts were wrong in setting aside the UDG's original order.

At DOI, she set legal policy for the department, managed its position in litigation including cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, and developed legal opinions to advance its objectives.

At the 7th Circuit, Judge Posner, perhaps in one of the shortest and least analytical opinions he ever wrote, said his Court was powerless to overturn Abood, setting the stage for SCOTUS review.

In a set of revised opinions from the panel hearing the appeal, and three additional opinions, the court exposed sharp division on the proper claim construction standard applicable to AIA trial proceedings.

The court in its opinion set forth a fundamental constitutional limit on what the federal government can do:

In a set of five separate opinions spanning over 140 pages, the appeals court rejected the current PTAB requirement that the patent owner bears the entire burden of proving that proposed amended claims are patentable over the prior art.

The majority opinion of these Supreme Court Justices has now set the standard for many same - sex marriage cases (or appeals) to come, because of the fact that it is the highest and most dominant court within the US legal syCourt Justices has now set the standard for many same - sex marriage cases (or appeals) to come, because of the fact that it is the highest and most dominant court within the US legal sycourt within the US legal system.

The opinion sets the stage for a Michigan Supreme Court decision to resolve the issue of res judicata in uninsured motorist claims.

«In an unusual summary opinion, without hearing oral argument, the Court today sent back to the 11th Circuit for further review its holding that a jury verdict in favor of two employees was appropriately set aside.

Some flaws are structural; others involve poor management of the judiciary as a whole and of individual courts and judges; a third set concerns «deficiencies in how federal judges decide cases and justify their decisions in judicial opinions,» including a mechanical formalism and an unwillingness to confront openly the task of solving complex problems.

Using a process set out in the Supreme Court Act, the federal executive referred questions to the Court for its opinion.

An unpublished Court of Appeals opinion from November 15, 2011, Fekete v. Fekete, provides some rationale to support the family court's decision not to use Schedule C guidelines in setting child supCourt of Appeals opinion from November 15, 2011, Fekete v. Fekete, provides some rationale to support the family court's decision not to use Schedule C guidelines in setting child supcourt's decision not to use Schedule C guidelines in setting child support:

In fact, AG Wathelet in his Opinion attempted to explain how arbitral tribunals satisfy the conditions set by the CJEU to be considered «a court or tribunal of a Member State» (paras. 90 - 131).

She reasoned that insurance companies took this into account in setting their premiums; there was no reason in her opinion to depart from the Supreme Court's position that statutes should not be given retrospective operation in the absence of an express or implied intention to that effect, especially when the statute impacts the calculation of insurance premiums.

I also observed the concerns set out by a string of concurring opinions in the Supreme Court of Canada which caution against a blanket presumption of deference towards statutory interpretation by administrative tribunals of their home legislation and assert the need for deference to rest on a more principled foundation like demonstrated expertise or familiarity of the tribunal with that legislation.

The Clement Report repeats the strong opinion that was set out in the Franks Report on the need for a statutory appeal to the courts:

The Franks Report set out a firm opinion that statutory tribunal decisions must be subject to review, and moreover that these decisions must be subject to review by the courts on points of law.

According to the court's opinion, the restaurant's entrance had two sets of doors.

2 These circumstances raise two sets of issues to which this opinion is addressed: first, the ethical and practical concerns posed in a lawyer - client relationship when a limited scope engagement is entered into; and second, issues related to the obligation of lawyers to reveal the existence of such a limited scope engagement to others involved in the matter, most particularly to courts before whom clients are appearing pro se, with assistance from a lawyer with whom he or she has a limited scope engagement.

Acknowledging that earlier opinions of the Court «have sometimes overlooked th [e] distinction» between jurisdictional limitations and claim - processing rules or elements of a cause of action, Justice Ginsburg explained that «a provision governing the time to appeal in a civil action qualifies as jurisdictional only if Congress sets the time.»

Although it is hard to be certain without more publicly available information, FISC judges likely treat their opinions as non-precedential, as is standard practice for federal district courts.19 The relatively few public FISC opinions do cite earlier FISC opinions and principles of law, 20 but we have seen no clear evidence to suggest that the judges feel formally bound by those earlier opinions in any manner that would set them apart from other Article III district courts.

1) we agree to disagree:) 2) supremacy of EU law for the EU system is the equivalent of the hard core of constitutional values that some national Courts defend against EU (and ECHR)- it is not a matter of «legitimacy» or «patriotism» but of using a «lower rank» instrument (accession treaty) to interfere with a treaty rule: the identical issue is for States who have a «rigid» constitution (alike the Treaty binds the CIEU): the accession treaty to ECHR or EU has a «lower rank» than the Constitution itself, so that the national Constitutional Court can not accept it can derogate to a higher ranking rule - usually they will find a way to reconcile the «construction» of the two set of rules, but if they are requested of an opinion on the point of principle, they will always say that in the very end, if all other paths have been explored to avoid the conflict, eventually it is the Constitution and neither ECHR nor EUwhich prevails.

Moreover, this could also be an appropriate test case for the Supreme Court to clarify that the principles set out in National Bank of Canada v. RCIU (the case cited by the hyperbolic Bruce Pardy) do not apply to lawyers, either in their personal or professional capacities, and that Lavigne and Green together stand for the principle that not only is there no right «not to associate» in Canadian law, there is also no right «not to speak» when it comes to lawyers, contrary to the misapprehension of those who are shocked and amazed that the Law Society can require them to adopt a «Statement of Principles» that will, as the supporting legal opinion points out, make their «generic human rights obligations» more «personal... tangible... and readily accessible.»

The relevant provision in relation to conduct is set out in s 25 (2)(g) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (as amended)(MCA 1973) which provides that «the court shall in particular have regard to the following matters --(g) the conduct of each of the parties, if that conduct is such that it would in the opinion of the court be inequitable to disregard it».

On 6 September 2017, Belgium submitted a request to the Court of Justice of the European Union for an opinion on the compatibility of the investment court system set up under the CETA with the European TreaCourt of Justice of the European Union for an opinion on the compatibility of the investment court system set up under the CETA with the European Treacourt system set up under the CETA with the European Treaties.

But setting aside lofty debates about the relationship between precedent and the rule of law, there are a variety of reasons that courts have found it valuable to be able to designate some opinions as nonprecedential.

The minuter circumstances of each case, and the points of fact, as well as law, on which all the cases turned, in this Court and in the Court below, are set forth with such precision in the opinions of both Mr. Justice Grier and Mr. Justice Nelson that more than the brief narrative above given does not seem to be necessary.

And yet, in Ice, a one - time (though fickle) Apprendi supporter, Justice Ginsburg, wrote a broad opinion for the Court limiting Apprendi's reach and suggesting that she (as well as Justice Alito, who was another key swing vote in Ice) may be increasingly concerning about what could happen if Apprendi rights were extended into new sentencing settings.

The sought - after opinion may relate to who should have custody of a child, and whether court - ordered visitation terms should perhaps limit contact or set conditions as a prerequisite.

Mr. Whitney successfully briefed and argued a case before the Court of Special Appeals resulting in a reported opinion setting forth new Maryland law regarding Best Interest Attorneys.