Sentences with phrase «federal court decision protects»

Indiana Federal Court Decision Protects Plaintiffs Injured in Auto Accidents, Indiana Accident Attorneys, March 17, 2014.

Related Posts: Indiana Federal Court Decision Protects Plaintiffs Injured in Auto Accidents, Indiana Accident Attorneys, March 17, 2014 Indiana Supreme Court Reverses Lower Courts» Rulings, Allows Malpractice Suit to Continue., Indiana Accident Attorneys, April 4, 2014.

Not exact matches

A decision by a federal appeals court this week dealt another blow to supporters of an Obama - era rule intended to protect retirement savers.

A federal district court, Judge Barbara Rothstein presiding, noted a long line of Supreme Court cases protecting «personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.&rcourt, Judge Barbara Rothstein presiding, noted a long line of Supreme Court cases protecting «personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.&rCourt cases protecting «personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.»

The U.S. Justice Department has filed court papers in a New York case arguing that a major federal civil rights law does not protect employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation, taking a stand against a decision reached under President Barack Obama.

His Senate has blocked Cuomo's attempts to expand abortion rights to protect late - term abortions, as well as efforts to make sure federal protections would continue if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the Roe v. Wade decision that made abortion legal nationwide.

In its decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal noted the trial judge «made many errors» stating the original interpretation did not take into consideration that a two - step process involving consultation by both the province and the federal government is unnecessary, as the treaty right is protected.

Qualcomm makes some public interest arguments about the importance of protecting intellectual property, but it probably knows that it's preaching to the converted when telling the Federal Circuit about the importance of IP to innovation, and focuses on making an argument that characterizes Judge Posner's decision to deny injunctive relief as inconsistent with Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent.

At issue in both is the federal law banning «partial birth abortion,» which Congress passed in the wake of the Court's 2000 decision Stenberg v. Carhart, which struck down a similar statute in Nebraska because it failed to include an exception that would allow the procedure if needed to protect the health of the mother.

The right to breastfeed in public has made headlines of late, but the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Flatt v. Attorney General of Canada, 2015 FCA 250 makes it clear that choosing to breastfeed in most instances is just that — a choice, and not one that will necessarily be protected by human rights legislation in the context of work obligations.

The Supreme Court set aside the Federal Court of Appeal's decision that the records in issue be sent back to the Federal Court in order to establish whether any names in the accounts receivable list were protected by solicitor - client privilege.

In a decision released on February 25, 2014, the Federal Court of Canada granted the plaintiffs» motion for an order protecting the identities of «John Doe» and «Suzie Jones» which was opposed by the Government of Canada.

Justice Webb, writing for a unanimous bench, overturned a decision of the Federal Court that found CIP does not protect the sharing of SCP information between parties to a commercial transaction.

The Georgia Supreme Court issued a major decision last week in Moreland v. Austin which effects Georgia car accident victims by holding that HIPAA, the Federal law protecting the privacy of your medical records, preempts the Georgia State law saying that your doctors can talk to the defense attorney without your knowledge.

On March 22, 2018, the Federal Court of Appeal (Court) published its decision in The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency, Operating as Access Copyright v Canada, 2018 FCA 58, dismissing Access Copyright's application for judicial review of a decision by the Copyright Board (Board) certifying the royalties that provincial and territorial governments must pay Access Copyright for the reproduction of copyright - protected works.

In a decision issued on July 27, 2015 but not yet published (but available here as a PDF), the Federal Court of Canada has certified a class action against the Government of Canada for disclosing the personal health information of participants in the «Marihuana Medical Access Program» in a botched mailout that was intended to advise program participants about changes to the regulation, which ironically where said to protect privacy and safety.

Dozier claims that an Idaho federal district court agrees with him in this recent decision which purports to hold that cease - and - desist letters are protected by copyright law.

The Federal Court decision means the Canadian Bill of Rights «can be used to protect a person's rights when the Charter is not engaged,» as it was not in this case, says Waldman.

For example, in 2006, after the Federal Court's first instance decision in the Noongar case (which determined that some native title rights existed over Perth), the Howard Government was reported as saying that Australia's beloved beaches were no longer «protected» from native title.

In the first decision, Brad Bennett v. Michael Spear, announced March 19, the court ruled unanimously that people can sue the federal government to challenge the validity of efforts to protect endangered species.

But under the nation's federal system of government, each state has ratified its own constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court noted in the Pruneyard decision that individual state constitutions may protect freedom of speech on private mall property.