Sentences with phrase «district court of jurisdiction»

Not exact matches

The Enrollment Program also authorizes a superior court to have jurisdiction over enrollees by allowing it to «appoint a receiver, monitor, conservator, or other designated fiduciary or officer of the court for a defendant or the defendant's assets,» as well as authorizes the Commissioner of Business Oversight to «include in civil actions claims for ancillary relief, including restitution and disgorgement, on behalf of a person injured, as well as attorney's fees and costs, and civil penalties of up to $ 25,000» for up to four years after the purported violation occurred and «refer evidence regarding violations of the bill's provisions to the Attorney General, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the United States Department of the Treasury, or the district attorney of the county in which the violation occurred, who would be authorized, with or without this type of a reference, to institute appropriate proceedings.»

On 6 August 2013, Federal Judge Amos Mazzant of the Eastern District of Texas of the Fifth Circuit ruled that bitcoins are «a currency or a form of money» (specifically securities as defined by Federal Securities Laws), and as such were subject to the court's jurisdiction, [274][274] and Germany's Finance Ministry subsumed bitcoins under the term «unit of account» — a financial instrument — though not as e-money or a functional currency, a classification nonetheless having legal and tax implications.

Any claim arising from the information contained on the eDairy News website shall be submitted to the competence of the ordinary courts of the First Judicial District of the Province of Cordoba (Primera Circunscripción Judicial de la Provincia de Cordoba), Republic of Argentina, in the city of Córdoba, excluding any other jurisdiction (Federal jurisdiction is also excluded).

Your name, physical address and telephone number, and a statement that you consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which your physical address is located, or if your physical address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which BEAM SUNTORY may be found, and that you will accept service of process from the person who provided notification of allegedly infringing material or an agent of suchDistrict Court for the judicial district in which your physical address is located, or if your physical address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which BEAM SUNTORY may be found, and that you will accept service of process from the person who provided notification of allegedly infringing material or an agent of suchdistrict in which your physical address is located, or if your physical address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which BEAM SUNTORY may be found, and that you will accept service of process from the person who provided notification of allegedly infringing material or an agent of suchdistrict in which BEAM SUNTORY may be found, and that you will accept service of process from the person who provided notification of allegedly infringing material or an agent of such person.

As may be provided by law, an appellate term shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from the district court or a town, village or city court outside the city of New York.

Judge Joan M. Azrack, in addressing a room full of prospective jurors on Monday, let it be known that they'd been selected as representatives of one of the largest federal district court jurisdictions in the nation, covering Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, Nassau and Suffolk counties.

Referring to the people in the Southern District, the formal name of Manhattan federal court's jurisdiction, Kruger said, «They unnerved me.»

A United States commissioner specially designated by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has like jurisdiction and authority in the case of any person temporarily detained in Saint Elizabeths Hospital, pursuant to section 21 - 903.

A recent appeals court ruling found that school districts weren't under the jurisdiction of the New York State Division of Human Rights.

Any such dispute shall be litigated only in the local or federal courts of the District of Columbia, to the personal jurisdiction of which you hereby consent.

Any such dispute shall be litigated only in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (New York County) or the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the personal jurisdiction of which you hereby consent.

- The subscriberâ $ ™ s name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that you consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if your address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which FilmOn.com may be found, and that you will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of suchDistrict Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if your address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which FilmOn.com may be found, and that you will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of suchdistrict in which the address is located, or if your address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which FilmOn.com may be found, and that you will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of suchdistrict in which FilmOn.com may be found, and that you will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.

The state's highest court this month ruled against a coalition of poor rural districts, which claimed that significant differences between rich and poor jurisdictions violated the right to an education under the state constitution.

The suit, filed in Albany in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, cites a ruling in that jurisdiction earlier this year that the disclosure provisions of the state's pioneering «truth - in - testing» law are in direct conflict with federal copyright law.

The district court granted Horizon's petition for dismissal for lack of federal jurisdiction.

A federal judge has rejected a request by the Cleveland Board of Education to declare the district «unitary,» or desegregated, and end court jurisdiction over it.

These Terms will be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of District of Columbia, and you submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts located in District of Columbia for the resolution of any disputes.

We hold that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Polera's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act («ADA»), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.

(a) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this title and shall exercise the same without regard to whether the aggrieved party shall have exhausted any administrative or other remedies that may be provided by law.

(a) Whenever the Attorney General receives a complaint in writing signed by an individual to the effect that he is being deprived of or threatened with the loss of his right to the equal protection of the laws, on account of his race, color, religion, or national origin, by being denied equal utilization of any public facility which is owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of any State or subdivision thereof, other than a public school or public college as defined in section 401 of title IV hereof, and the Attorney General believes the complaint is meritorious and certifies that the signer or signers of such complaint are unable, in his judgment, to initiate and maintain appropriate legal proceedings for relief and that the institution of an action will materially further the orderly progress of desegregation in public facilities, the Attorney General is authorized to institute for or in the name of the United States a civil action in any appropriate district court of the United States against such parties and for such relief as may be appropriate, and such court shall have and shall exercise jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this section.

(2) signed by an individual, or his parent, to the effect that he has been denied admission to or not permitted to continue in attendance at a public college by reason of race, color, religion, or national origin, and the Attorney General believes the complaint is meritorious and certifies that the signer or signers of such complaint are unable, in his judgment, to initiate and maintain appropriate legal proceedings for relief and that the institution of an action will materially further the orderly achievement of desegregation in public education, the Attorney General is authorized, after giving notice of such complaint to the appropriate school board or college authority and after certifying that he is satisfied that such board or authority has had a reasonable time to adjust the conditions alleged in such complaint, to institute for or in the name of the United States a civil action in any appropriate district court of the United States against such parties and for such relief as may be appropriate, and such court shall have and shall exercise jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this section, provided that nothing herein shall empower any official or court of the United States to issue any order seeking to achieve a racial balance in any school by requiring the transportation of pupils or students from one school to another or one school district to another in order to achieve such racial balance, or otherwise enlarge the existing power of the court to insure compliance with constitutional standards.

(b) If the respondent named in a charge filed under section 706 fails or refuses to comply with a demand of the Commission for permission to examine or to copy evidence in conformity with the provisions of section 709 (a), or if any person required to comply with the provisions of section 709 (c) or (d) fails or refuses to do so, or if any person fails or refuses to comply with a demand by the Commission to give testimony under oath, the United States district court for the district in which such person is found, resides, or transacts business, shall, upon application of the Commission, have jurisdiction to issue to such person an order requiring him to comply with the provisions of section 709 (c) or (d) or to comply with the demand of the Commission, but the attendance of a witness may not be required outside the State where he is found, resides, or transacts business and the production of evidence may not be required outside the State where such evidence is kept.

To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.

(f) Each United States district court and each United States court of a place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this title.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant and venue is proper in the Southern District of New York under Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 22, and 28 U.S.C. 1391, because each Defendant transacts business and is found within the Southern District of New York.

(a) an electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on your behalf; (b) a description of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and where the material was located online before it was removed or access to it was disabled; (c) a written statement by you that under penalty of perjury, that you have a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled; and (d) your address, telephone number, and email address; and (e) a statement that you consent to the jurisdiction of federal district court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if your address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that you will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under DMCA 512 subsection (c)(1)(c) or an agent of such person.

your name, address and telephone number, and a statement that (i) you consent to the jurisdiction of the federal district court for the judicial district in which such address is located or, if your address is outside of the United States, to any judicial district in which Climate Central may be found, and (ii) you will accept service of process from the claimant who provided Climate Central's designated agent with notification of the alleged infringement in accordance with the DMCA, or an agent of such person.

Disputes You and Green Planet Films agree that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and / or the California Superior Court for the County of Marin shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any dispute between you and Green Planet Films relating in any way to the Green Planet Films sales, service or website or these Terms of Use.

Two of the judges on the panel agreed with the district court that it had no jurisdiction over the claims because Payne had failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the IDEA.

Contrary to the Stockholm District Court, the Svea Court of Appeal found that the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim made by Spanish investors against the Russian Federation originating from the alleged expropriation of the Spanish investor's investments in Yukos Oil Company.

«It looks like Congress has taken what I think is the unprecedented and rather bizarre step of expanding the jurisdiction of the federal courts to allow a particular District Court to take jurisdiction over a single case, that of Terri Schiavo.

Article 11 Cases pertaining to a petition for an order under paragraph 1 of the preceding Article shall be within the jurisdiction of the district court which exercises jurisdiction over the area where the opposite party maintains an address (or a place of residence in cases where the opposite party does not have an address in Japan or the address of the opposite party is unknown).

The Eleventh District Court of Appeals does appellate review of judgments of common pleas, municipal and county courts for Ashtabula, Geauga, Lake, Portage, and Trumbull; appeals from board of Tax Appeals; original jurisdiction in select cases.

Central Pennsylvania is in the jurisdiction of the Middle District of Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Court.

Held: The District Court's reservation of jurisdiction was purely formal; it did not impair the jurisdiction of this Court to review an otherwise final state court judgment; the judgment below was «final,» within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1257, and the case is properly before this CCourt's reservation of jurisdiction was purely formal; it did not impair the jurisdiction of this Court to review an otherwise final state court judgment; the judgment below was «final,» within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1257, and the case is properly before this CCourt to review an otherwise final state court judgment; the judgment below was «final,» within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1257, and the case is properly before this Ccourt judgment; the judgment below was «final,» within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1257, and the case is properly before this CourtCourt.

138 The Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 provides that «[t] he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.»

Contrary to the highlighted language in the statute, the Wisconsin District IV Court of Appeals, whose district includes Dane County Circuit Court, took jurisdiction over the Clean WisconsDistrict IV Court of Appeals, whose district includes Dane County Circuit Court, took jurisdiction over the Clean Wisconsdistrict includes Dane County Circuit Court, took jurisdiction over the Clean Wisconsin case.

Mauro at The BLT writes that the U.S. District Court in Washington, which now has habeas jurisdiction over the detainees as a result of today's ruling, is already responding to the decision.

Andrea lives in Texas, so Gummo v. Ward was filed in federal court in the Middle District of Tennessee because of diversity jurisdiction.

Constitutionally, Congress still has the authority to vest all U.S. District Courts with jurisdiction over any case in which the United States treated as a single state for purposes of general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction analysis.

But, while the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 allows many class action lawsuits which would otherwise be brought on exclusively state law claims in state court to be brought in federal court, or removed from state court to federal court, it does not authorize class action lawsuits that could not be brought in a state court which a U.S. District Court is located due to lack of either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction from being brought in that federal court eicourt to be brought in federal court, or removed from state court to federal court, it does not authorize class action lawsuits that could not be brought in a state court which a U.S. District Court is located due to lack of either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction from being brought in that federal court eicourt, or removed from state court to federal court, it does not authorize class action lawsuits that could not be brought in a state court which a U.S. District Court is located due to lack of either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction from being brought in that federal court eicourt to federal court, it does not authorize class action lawsuits that could not be brought in a state court which a U.S. District Court is located due to lack of either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction from being brought in that federal court eicourt, it does not authorize class action lawsuits that could not be brought in a state court which a U.S. District Court is located due to lack of either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction from being brought in that federal court eicourt which a U.S. District Court is located due to lack of either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction from being brought in that federal court eiCourt is located due to lack of either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction from being brought in that federal court eicourt either.

The district court denied the motion, holding that Plaintiff's claim was not moot, but certified the question of whether an unaccepted Rule 68 offer, made before certification, moots the entire action and deprives the court of jurisdiction.

But, the decision leaves Congress with the option of potentially changing that statute which currently limits the personal jurisdiction of federal trial courts to that of a state court of general jurisdiction in the same state, as it already does in cases that are predominantly «in rem» (e.g. interpleader cases and interstate boundary and real property title disputes), in bankruptcy cases, and with respect to the subpoena power of U.S. District Ccourts to that of a state court of general jurisdiction in the same state, as it already does in cases that are predominantly «in rem» (e.g. interpleader cases and interstate boundary and real property title disputes), in bankruptcy cases, and with respect to the subpoena power of U.S. District CourtsCourts.

Existing statutory limits on federal court jurisdiction limit the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Courts in most cases of cases to cases in which a state court in the state where the U.S. District Court is located would have either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction of the defendant (without regard to the fact that the case might be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts as a matter of subject matter jurisdiction which pertains to the nature of the cause of action asserted rather than the ties of the defendant to the forum stcourt jurisdiction limit the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Courts in most cases of cases to cases in which a state court in the state where the U.S. District Court is located would have either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction of the defendant (without regard to the fact that the case might be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts as a matter of subject matter jurisdiction which pertains to the nature of the cause of action asserted rather than the ties of the defendant to the forum sCourts in most cases of cases to cases in which a state court in the state where the U.S. District Court is located would have either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction of the defendant (without regard to the fact that the case might be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts as a matter of subject matter jurisdiction which pertains to the nature of the cause of action asserted rather than the ties of the defendant to the forum stcourt in the state where the U.S. District Court is located would have either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction of the defendant (without regard to the fact that the case might be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts as a matter of subject matter jurisdiction which pertains to the nature of the cause of action asserted rather than the ties of the defendant to the forum stCourt is located would have either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction of the defendant (without regard to the fact that the case might be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts as a matter of subject matter jurisdiction which pertains to the nature of the cause of action asserted rather than the ties of the defendant to the forum scourts as a matter of subject matter jurisdiction which pertains to the nature of the cause of action asserted rather than the ties of the defendant to the forum state).

This would leave the question of which particular U.S. District Court was the proper one to file in as a question of venue (which does not have a constitutional dimension) rather than a question of jurisdiction (which is subject to constitutional considerations), and many legal scholars have urged Congress to do just that.

If a forum state's courts have «general jurisdiction» over a defendant, this means that the defendant can be sued in that forum on any cause of action against that defendant arising anywhere in the world, regardless of any other relationship that the claim has to the forum state (except for claims in the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts which can be brought in a U.S. District Court located in the same state, or in an arbitration forum pursuant to a valid arbitration clause that binds the parties, an issue beyond the scope of this question and answer).

The decision halts a 27 - year old expansion of venue in patent cases which began in 1990 when an appellate court expanded venue from a corporation's state of incorporation to any district where personal jurisdiction could be established over the alleged infringer.

District court: A court of the federal government or of a state, having jurisdiction over a particular geographic area.

For almost 30 years, venue of patent cases utilized the general federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (c), which allows a corporation to be sued «in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction.»

HB 461 would have increased the jurisdiction of the District Court to $ 50,000 while HB 719 would have raised the jurisdiction to $ 50,000 but only for first - party motor vehicle insurance benefits for uninsured motorist coverage.