Sentences with phrase «justice of the supreme court referred»

If you think this is odd, you are not alone»... one judge referring to the laws as «Alice - in - Wonderland» and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court referred to the situation as «bizarre»».

Not exact matches

The Supreme Court gave a boost to their conviction that secularism is a genuine competing faith in the ruling in the 1961 Torcaso case, in which «Secular Humanism» was identified as a religion, and in Justice Potter Stewart's dissent in the 1963 Schempp case, which referred to a refusal to permit religious exercises in schools as not «the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism.»

When Americans — whether presidents, Supreme Court justices or ordinary citizens — refer to the «wall of separation» desired by the Founders, they not only perpetuate a historical inaccuracy; they unwittingly revive some of the most distasteful episodes in American history.

In his ruling, N.Y. Supreme Court justice Manuel Mendez wrote, «New York State penal law does not refer to «wagering» or «betting,» rather it states that a person, «risks something of value.

In the Agyei — Twum Case the Supreme Court was very clear that the privacy of impeachment proceedings extends even to the moment the petition is presented to the President and is referred to the Chief Justice.

Carr was referring to the July 2015 decision by Manhattan State Supreme Court Justice Alice Schlesinger, who ruled in favor of the Legal Aid Society, which had sought a summary of the accusations that were lodged against Officer Daniel Pantaleo prior to Garner's death in 2014 and substantiated by the Civilian Complaint Review Board.

Justice Feldman, for the court, referred to paras 26 - 27 of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simcourt, referred to paras 26 - 27 of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in WIC Radio Ltd. v. SimCourt of Canada's decision in WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson,

Certain commentators in the media have picked up on the possibility that the Supreme Court could refer (certain aspects of) the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

The analysis of the opinions from the 2006 — 2008 Supreme - Court terms referred to above showed that certain U.S. Supreme Court Justices use these methods.

In «Justices Turning More Frequently to Dictionary, and Not Just for Big Words,» Adam Liptak wrote about the considerable frequency with which U.S. Supreme Court Justices refer to dictionary definitions in their opinions, much to the concern — not to say derision — of linguists and lexicologists.

He refers to her «nimble feat of jujitsu» as Justice Ginsburg manipulated a Supreme Court defeat into a legislative victory.

Furthermore, as predicted in the previous post on revocation, at paragraph 36 the UK Supreme Court proceeds on the assumption of the irreversibility of notice under Article 50 TEU once it is given, and did not refer the question to the Court of Justice through the preliminary reference procedure of Article 267 TFEU.

In the present proceedings in (R) Miller, I would argue that the UK Supreme Court is not under an obligation to refer the question of the revocability of a notice under Article 50 TEU to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Four of the Supreme Court's decisions referred questions to what we must now call the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The case raises important issues of principle of EU and pensions law, which the Supreme Court has referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Therefore, according to the ECJ, the national supreme court «might decide to refrain from making a reference to the Court and resolve the question raised before it on its own» and it is not required «to wait until the Court of Justice has given an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the lower court» (paragraphcourt «might decide to refrain from making a reference to the Court and resolve the question raised before it on its own» and it is not required «to wait until the Court of Justice has given an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the lower court» (paragraphCourt and resolve the question raised before it on its own» and it is not required «to wait until the Court of Justice has given an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the lower court» (paragraphCourt of Justice has given an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the lower court» (paragraphcourt» (paragraph 61).

Authorizes the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to appoint magistrates (rather than referees) in civil actions in the Court of Claims and authorizes a magistrate to disclose or refer to certain records or reports otherwise exempt from public disclosure in reparations hearings.

On April 13, 2018 the Supreme Court of Lithuania (SCoL) decided to stay proceedings and refer a question for preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in a case that raises new questions related to the in - house exemption (civil case No.

Cross-posted to Library Boy where I refer to other findings by Alarie and Green that show that Supreme Court of Canada justices who served from 1982 - 2004 do not appear to have been particularly ideologically driven, especially in comparison with their colleagues on the U.S. Supreme Court.

I am not referring to the weather; the frost I am talking about would come from the chilly reception Obama might feel from at least two justices of the Supreme Court.

Within six weeks of the creation of what Lennox has often referred to as «the modern Ontario Court of Justice», the Supreme Court of Canada, in its October 1980 Askov decision, changed the nature of judicial administration within the province.

In December last year the Supreme Court referred to the Court of Justice of the EU, Edwards, a case about the English costs regime, and whether it complies with the Aarhus convention.

It has been more than 15 years since former Supreme Court Justice David Souter referred to asbestos litigation as an «elephantine mass,» the most massive of mass torts in America for decades.

In its preliminary ruling given on September 9th 2015 pursuant to a reference by the Court of First Instance, Lisbon (Varas Civeis de Lisboa)[1] the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) elaborated on the notion of» transfer of a business» in light of Directive 2001/23 and in that respect also dwelled on the obligation of the Portuguese Supreme Court to refer the question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.

It is surely no coincidence that to demonstrate the importance of universal access to justice to democratic process, the Supreme Court here refers to «courts» as a whole.

The Federal Minister of Justice announced earlier this year that she intends to refer the Act to the Supreme Court of Canada over its constitutionality.

They referred to two works of Argentine lawyer, Eugenio Raúl Zaffaroni, who currently sits on the Supreme Court of Justice.

Mostly, the right of access to courts (which the parties tended to refer to as access to justice, although — as the provinces pointed out — access to justice involves many different things) was said to flow from the constitutional principle of the Rule of Law, which the Supreme Court has long recognized, albeit giving it a very narrow meaning.

This dicta by the Supreme Court in Hardesty did not discuss the effect of SCR 4.020 (1)(d) which gives the Judicial Conduct Commission «the authority to refer any judge of the Court of Justice who, after notice and hearing is found by the Commission to be guilty of misconduct, to the KBA for possible suspension or disbarment from the practice of law.»

«In relation to the considerations that serve to distinguish a policy decision from the operational decision, I continue to think that the four considerations referred to by Madam Justice McLachlin, as the trial judge in Just, are helpful and are unaffected by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in that case.

Chief Justice Strathy referred to passages in the Supreme Court's decision of Masterpiece Inc. v. Alavida Lifestyles Inc. and the Court of Appeal's decision in Johnson v. Milton (Town), which emphasized the role of the judge as gatekeeper of unnecessary information.

Justice Howden referred to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Nova Scotia (Workers» Compensation Board) v. Martin; Nova Scotia (Workers» Compensation Board) v. Laseur, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504, 2003 SCC 54 (CanLII):

In addition to relying on Hong Kong authority, importantly, Justice Ng also relied on the Australian authority of Trkulja v Google Inc. (No. 5)(hereinafter referred to as Trkulja), in which Justice David Beach of the Supreme Court of Victoria held that there was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury, if properly directed, could return a verdict for the plaintiff and hold Google to be liable for defamation for its search results under orthodox common law principles.

Convincing as that reasoning may have been to Justice Ng of the Hong Kong court, she did not have the benefit of the more recent decision in Bleyer v Google Inc (hereinafter referred to as Bleyer) delivered by the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Austrcourt, she did not have the benefit of the more recent decision in Bleyer v Google Inc (hereinafter referred to as Bleyer) delivered by the Supreme Court of New South Wales in AustrCourt of New South Wales in Australia.