Sentences with phrase «federal court decisions applying»

There have, however, only been two Federal Court decisions applying the provision and there is no High Court authority.

Not exact matches

The act attempted to restore some of the rights of religious practitioners that had been limited by a 1990 Supreme Court Decision, but a 1997 decision by the Supreme Court kept the Act from being applied to the federal govDecision, but a 1997 decision by the Supreme Court kept the Act from being applied to the federal govdecision by the Supreme Court kept the Act from being applied to the federal government.

This decision probably shouldn't have been a surprise, because it basically said that the court's 2010 decision in the Citizens United case, upholding the right of corporations to spend money in federal elections, applies to the states as well.

Wilson referenced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which was determined by a Supreme Court decision to apply only to the federal government, and not to state or local municipalities (which must pass their own).

The public benefit test was recently considered, albeit not in a media merger context, by the Full Federal Court in ACCC v Australian Competition Tribunal [2017] FCAFC 150 (Tabcorp) where the Court applied a broad concept of public benefit consistent with the Fairfax decision in New Zealand:

The ACCC has applied to the Federal Court for a judicial review of the Australian Competition Tribunal's recent Tabcorp / Tatts merger authorisation decision.

Appeal seeks reversal of Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision terminating interference without determining priority of inventorship of CRISPR / Cas9 gene editing Brief asserts that the Board failed to properly apply controlling U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedents, and ignored evidence of multiple groups readily applying CRISPR / Cas9 gene editing to eukaryotic cells following teachings of Charpentier - Doudna team

The federal district court affirmed the Department of Education's decision, as did the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, applying the Supreme Court's reasoning in the Rowley decicourt affirmed the Department of Education's decision, as did the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, applying the Supreme Court's reasoning in the Rowley deciCourt of Appeals, applying the Supreme Court's reasoning in the Rowley deciCourt's reasoning in the Rowley decision.

The ACCC has applied to the Federal Court for a judicial review of the Australian Competition Tribunal's recent Tabcorp / Tatts merger authorisation decision.

It makes unnecessary the two step analysis of the applicability of provincial laws suggested by s. 88 of the Indian Act, RSC 1985, c I - 5 (at least so far as provincial laws are claimed to apply to «Indians» rather than «lands reserved») and the Court's decision in Dick, [1985] 2 SCR 309 — in fact we don't need s. 88 any longer since there are no longer any inapplicable provincial laws that need to be made applicable by operation of a federal statute.

The new Liberal government asked the Supreme Court of Canada today for a six - month delay in applying its decision on physician - assisted suicide because of the recent federal election.

In Danforth, a 7 - 2 majority held that states are free to make the benefits of Supreme Court decisions apply retroactively, even if the Supreme Court itself has ruled they are not retroactive under federal law.

In a decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit and ruled that patent exhaustion applies both to «Return Program» cartridges in the U.S. and to cartridges sold outside the U.S.

For class actions in particular, the Court pointed out that Congress also has provided the remedy of enlarged removal jurisdiction under CAFA, and that, once in federal court, class actions may be transferred and consolidated in one court, and that «we would expect federal courts to apply principles of comity to each other's class certification decisions when addressing a common dispute.&rCourt pointed out that Congress also has provided the remedy of enlarged removal jurisdiction under CAFA, and that, once in federal court, class actions may be transferred and consolidated in one court, and that «we would expect federal courts to apply principles of comity to each other's class certification decisions when addressing a common dispute.&rcourt, class actions may be transferred and consolidated in one court, and that «we would expect federal courts to apply principles of comity to each other's class certification decisions when addressing a common dispute.&rcourt, and that «we would expect federal courts to apply principles of comity to each other's class certification decisions when addressing a common dispute.»

The legal research service Ravel Law, which last year launched Judge Analytics to provide analysis of how individual federal court judges make decisions, today is launching Court Analytics, a similar feature that applies analytics to an entire court, including all its cases and jucourt judges make decisions, today is launching Court Analytics, a similar feature that applies analytics to an entire court, including all its cases and juCourt Analytics, a similar feature that applies analytics to an entire court, including all its cases and jucourt, including all its cases and judges.

In addition to applying different claim construction standards, the Court listed a number of differences between AIA trials and federal court litigation: the lack of a constitutional standing requirement for petitioners, the PTAB practice of reaching a final decision even after the petitioner settles out, and a lower burden of pCourt listed a number of differences between AIA trials and federal court litigation: the lack of a constitutional standing requirement for petitioners, the PTAB practice of reaching a final decision even after the petitioner settles out, and a lower burden of pcourt litigation: the lack of a constitutional standing requirement for petitioners, the PTAB practice of reaching a final decision even after the petitioner settles out, and a lower burden of proof.

The Federal Court (decision not yet available online) agreed that the COC was a public authority, but said that because they hadn't used the marks before applying to make them official marks they couldn't rely on the section.

The court, tackling choice of law rules to determine applicable state law to analyze the preclusive effect of the prior court decisions, embraced the notion that «nationwide uniformity in the substance of the matter is better served by having the same - preclusive rule (the state rule) apply whether the dismissal ordered by a state or a federal court... [Thus, the court adopts] the law that would be applied by state courts in the State in which the federal diversity court sits.»)

Interestingly, when applied to federal law, California Courts have held just the opposite: that «unpublished federal decisions can be cited as persuasive but not precedential authority.»

On June 3, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada, in two related decisions, strengthened the legal protection of solicitor - client privilege in relation to Canada Revenue Agency's (CRA) audit and tax collection powers when it decided the federal Income Tax Act's «requirement» scheme is unconstitutional insofar as it applies to lawyers and notaries, and the lawyers» accounting records exception in the Act's definition of «solicitor - client privilege» is completely unconstitutional.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding, in a 6 - 5 decision, that laches could still apply in a patent case, and that Petrella did not apply, because the patent damages statute was different from the copyright statue.

«This is the first federal court to adopt and apply the three - part test for trademark ownership set forth in the TTAB's Wonderbread 5 decision,» said Foley Hoag partner David Kluft.

In 2014 and 2015, two federal court of appeal decisions (Canada (Attorney General) v. Johnstone and Canadian National Railway Company v. Seeley) and one Ontario Court of Appeal decision (Partridge v. Botony Dental Corporation) set out and applied a four - part test employees must meet to succeed in a family status discrimination claim in the context of childcourt of appeal decisions (Canada (Attorney General) v. Johnstone and Canadian National Railway Company v. Seeley) and one Ontario Court of Appeal decision (Partridge v. Botony Dental Corporation) set out and applied a four - part test employees must meet to succeed in a family status discrimination claim in the context of childCourt of Appeal decision (Partridge v. Botony Dental Corporation) set out and applied a four - part test employees must meet to succeed in a family status discrimination claim in the context of childcare:

The Court of Appeals then summarized decisions from the Second and Fifth Circuits addressing whether the New York Convention applied to the states as a treaty or as implementing federal lesiglation, and the Fourth Circuit saw a conflict in the holdings of the Second and Fifth Circuits.

Similarly, it is no argument against the position adopted by the Federal Court of Appeal in Forest Ethics or the one proposed by Stratas J.A. in Maritime Broadcasting that deference was given on questions of substance, because that assumes the answer to the threshold question of whether the Dunsmuir framework applies at all to «procedural» decisions.

The law based on the federal and state constitutions, legislation and court decisions automatically applies to everyone.

Booker completely changed the sentencing landscape in the federal court system, but it left many questions as to what standards appellate courts would apply in reviewing sentencing decisions.

And the related issue in Highmark v. Allcare Health Management Systems has to do with the standard of review the appellate court, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, must apply when reviewing the district court's decision to grant or deny the award of court, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, must apply when reviewing the district court's decision to grant or deny the award of Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, must apply when reviewing the district court's decision to grant or deny the award of court's decision to grant or deny the award of fees.

A recent decision of the Federal Court has confirmed that adjudicators acting under the wrongful dismissal provisions of the Canada Labour Code can apply equitable principles in determining jurisdiction.

Thus, not only is a federal court sitting in diversity and applying D.C. law not bound by the Rules of Decision Act to follow the decisions of the D.C. Court of Appeals; there actually is something that seems untoward about an Article III court being bound by a non-Article III court's interpretation of federal law — even where that federal law is only of local applicabicourt sitting in diversity and applying D.C. law not bound by the Rules of Decision Act to follow the decisions of the D.C. Court of Appeals; there actually is something that seems untoward about an Article III court being bound by a non-Article III court's interpretation of federal law — even where that federal law is only of local applicabiCourt of Appeals; there actually is something that seems untoward about an Article III court being bound by a non-Article III court's interpretation of federal law — even where that federal law is only of local applicabicourt being bound by a non-Article III court's interpretation of federal law — even where that federal law is only of local applicabicourt's interpretation of federal law — even where that federal law is only of local applicability.

The Federal Court appeal of that decision found that the U.K. legislation did not apply in Canada and ought not to be applied as a matter of comity to exclude this evidence.

In the 2008 case, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned a decision of the Copyright Board of Canada to apply a blank media levy to digital devices such as iPods and other MP3 players on the basis that they were embedded memory devices and therefore did not fall within the definition of «audio recording media».

Indeed, prior to the decision below, federal and state courts uniformly held (or assumed) that Apprendi applies to the imposition of criminal fines.

In their latest New York Law Journal column on Federal E-Discovery, litigation partners Christopher Boehning and Daniel Toal discuss a recent district court decision that applied the new version of Rule 26 (b)(1) of the...

Section 190D (2) of the NTA gives native title applicants who fail the registration test (26) the right to apply to the Federal Court for judicial review of the Native Title registrar's decision not to register their application on the National Native Title Register.

The check is all the more important following the Federal Court decision in Holt v Manzie [1], in which Olney J held that the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act does not apply to expedited procedure dDecisions (Judicial Review) Act does not apply to expedited procedure decisionsdecisions.