Sentences with phrase «federal court cases generally»

Federal court cases generally take much longer to resolve than state cases.

Not exact matches

Courts have generally held that due to this dual nature tribes have immunity from federal civil cases, most of the time, and are not subject to laws of States the reservation is on.

Federal courts typically refuse to create new substantive rights, and in a 1989 case, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the Supreme Court «recognized that the [Constitution's] Due Process Clauses generally confer no affirmative right to governmental aid, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests.»

This simplifying of the standard of review, and the important role of prothonotaries in the Federal Court generally and in intellectual property cases will make appeals more straightforward.

Trucks are generally required to have commercial insurance and truck accident cases can be tried in Federal court.

For one thing, Scholar has a fairly significant cache of articles and case law that runs back about 60 years and encompasses federal district court cases, state and federal appellate decisions, and other topics generally reserved for the legal community.

This style of anonymous judgment has generally been focused on constitutional issues down three different tracks: first, reactively to federal but not provincial reference cases; second, defensively on issues impacting directly on the judiciary; and third, proactively on constitutional issues at the Court's internal discretion.

Generally, in those cases, a legislative body has to authorize the appropriation «voluntarily» from whatever source of funds it choses to impose, and usually, when push comes to shove, state and local governments do pay the judgments they owe (there are limited federal bankruptcy options for municipalities and states), although there are instances of state governments stubbornly refusing to take the actions necessary to comply with court orders directing that public schools be funded for many, many years.

The Federal Circuit panel's recent open criticism of the redundancy practice may signal an attempt by the court to check the practice, despite cases holding that institution decisions are generally not subject to court review.

One bit of conventional wisdom that is commonly heard in the defense bar is that defendants should generally remove cases to federal court when they have the right to do so because juries are less prone to extreme verdicts and the judges are more favorable to defendants.

For Phoenix - based injury and wrongful death cases, plaintiffs generally have the option of filing in two different courts: state or federal.

Unfortunately, it raises some constitutional questions around preemption (the doctrine that federal law invalidates state law when they are in conflict) and federal due process (which generally protects the right to take cases to court or make demands when they're sent in good faith).

While Justice Beaumont has commented that the three year disposition target for native title matters was aspirational rather than mandatory, [16] anecdotal evidence that the Federal Court is generally unwilling to adjourn native title cases suggests that these quantitative performance indicators in fact significantly adversely impact upon the management of native title cases for representative bodies.

Like the criminal offences under the Act, reviewable matters are also investigated by the Bureau, may result in proceedings initiated by the Bureau or private parties in certain cases with leave from the Competition Tribunal, are generally heard before the Competition Tribunal (and in some cases in provincial or Federal Court) and are subject to a variety of potential remedial orders or monetary penalties.