Sentences with phrase «judicial court clarified»

Recently, in the case of Haddad v. Walmart Stores, Inc., the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court clarified the standard for the award of punitive damages.

The Supreme Judicial Court clarified the broader issue, raised by this case, of what to do when a client discharges an attorney, subsequently retains another attorney, and previous counsel had been retained on a contingent fee basis.

Not exact matches

The solution proposed to tackle those difficulties is nevertheless fundamentally different: the Court would intervene ex post to clarify the meaning and assess the legality of a standard as part of EU law, whereas the Parliament calls for more ex ante control mechanisms being put in place and seems to ignore the possibility of ex post judicial control in this particular context.

In its decision in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [3] the Court attempted to clarify and simplify Canadian judicial review doctrine.

The Arizona Court of Appeals did accept jurisdiction, however, to clarify that some of the procedures followed by the court, in this case, were contrary to the statutes in place for the purpose of preventing any court in the future from delegating judicial decisions to expert witnesses or allowing interim transfers of custody without a heaCourt of Appeals did accept jurisdiction, however, to clarify that some of the procedures followed by the court, in this case, were contrary to the statutes in place for the purpose of preventing any court in the future from delegating judicial decisions to expert witnesses or allowing interim transfers of custody without a heacourt, in this case, were contrary to the statutes in place for the purpose of preventing any court in the future from delegating judicial decisions to expert witnesses or allowing interim transfers of custody without a heacourt in the future from delegating judicial decisions to expert witnesses or allowing interim transfers of custody without a hearing.

That, in turn, would have clarified the substantive issues before the court on judicial review and allowed the court to determine whether that definition is reasonable (or correct, if that is the applicable standard) and within the legislative authority of the law society to apply.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, No. 15 - 1406 (SCOTUS April 18, 2017), clarified the standard to be used by district judges in imposing «inherent power of the court to control judicial process» sanctions as far as setting an appropriate amount of sanctions, reversing a $ 2.7 million sanctions award in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Goodyear after a case was setCourt, in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, No. 15 - 1406 (SCOTUS April 18, 2017), clarified the standard to be used by district judges in imposing «inherent power of the court to control judicial process» sanctions as far as setting an appropriate amount of sanctions, reversing a $ 2.7 million sanctions award in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Goodyear after a case was setcourt to control judicial process» sanctions as far as setting an appropriate amount of sanctions, reversing a $ 2.7 million sanctions award in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Goodyear after a case was settled.

501 «Reasonableness Transformed (in Canada)» [2008] 13 J.R. 214 «Complicating Simplicity: the «Court First Seised» and «Related Actions» in Article 28» [2008] 27 C.J.Q. 454 «Monkeying Around with Free Speech» (2008) 124 L.Q.R. 560 «Judicial Review — Ten Years On» [2008] 13 J.R. 214 «Clarifying Immateriality» [2008] 13 J.R. 111 «Of Coups and Compensation Claims: Mbasogo Reassessed» [2008] 19 King's L.J. 176 «Independent and Impartial Tribunals: Another One Bites the Dust» [2008] 13 J.R. 46 «Proportionality, the Decision - Maker and the House of Lords» [2007] 12 J.R. 221 «Au Revoir to Renvoi?»

The Supreme Judicial Court went on to clarify the circumstances under which a victim of unlawful discrimination may recover punitive damages.

We submit the Supreme Court should clarify the jurisdiction of the JCC and the KBA and uphold the Doctrine of Judicial Immunity.

The Supreme Court of the United States has clarified the judicial requirements that a land owner must meet in order claim that the government has violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.