Sentences with phrase «march judgment of the court»

However, several judicial interventions followed, culminating in the 16th March judgment of the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja, clearing all legal hurdles for the Commission to commence the recall process.

Not exact matches

Flight Centre has unsuccessfully attempted to stay orders for payment of $ 11 fine imposed by the Court in March (see judgment).

Judge Elaine Slobod, of Orange County Supreme Court in upstate New York, granted partial summary judgment March 12 for Wah - chung Hsu, who once lived in the hamlet of Highland Mills, saying in court documents that Wyckoff was in breach of contract when it did not pay him severance after firingCourt in upstate New York, granted partial summary judgment March 12 for Wah - chung Hsu, who once lived in the hamlet of Highland Mills, saying in court documents that Wyckoff was in breach of contract when it did not pay him severance after firingcourt documents that Wyckoff was in breach of contract when it did not pay him severance after firing him.

The form 48 contempt suit was filed at the Federal High Court, Lagos last week by SERAP executive director Adetokunbo Mumui «following the service on Mr Malami and Alhaji Idris of the certified true copy of the judgment of 24 March 2016 by Justice Muhammed Idris.»

The right to demonstrate is another of our freedoms but I'd say this - one of the great things about our supreme court, indeed all our courts, is it wouldn't matter how many people march, it wouldn't move their judgments by one comma.

A statement by the chairman of the campaign organization, Sir Edwin Uboo in Awka, said that the organisation was particularly angered by Umeh's alleged continued deliberate malicious misinterpretation, misrepresentation and sentimentalization of the Court of Appeal judgment in Enugu that Ekwunife was disqualified from contesting the scheduled fresh election expected to hold in March, 2016.

In March, advocate general Yves Bot issued a preliminary judgment limiting patents involving embryonic stem cells, on the basis that they «would be contrary to ethics and public policy» (see «European Court of Justice rejects stem - cell patents»).

On 13 March 2017, the State Party informed the World Heritage Centre that the Attorney General's office is considering the African Court's judgment on the Endorois land, including the restitution of Lake Bogoria to the community.

Encouraging IWC Commissioners to take all necessary steps to prevent Japan from further whaling in light of the International Court of Justice's March 2014 judgment that Japan's Antarctic whaling did not qualify as scientific research and thus undermined the moratorium; and

Urging IWC Commissioners to strongly criticize Japan for its continued «scientific» whaling, in light of the International Court of Justice's March 2014 judgment that Japan's previous Antarctic whaling did not qualify as scientific research;

After an Odyssey of nearly 10 years, the legal proceedings of Switzerland against German restrictions on flights to and from Zurich airport have come to an end: The CJEU, in its judgement delivered on 7 March 2013 (Case C ‑ 547 / 10 P), has rejected Switzerland's appeal against the judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 (Case T ‑ 319 / 05), by which the General Court had rejected Switzerland «s action for annulment against Commission Decision 2004 / 12 / EC of 5 December 2003 (OJ 2004 L 4, p. 13), thus allowing Germany to continue to apply unilateral restrictions on flights to and from Zurich airport over German territory.

On 3 April 2014 the CJEU confirmed the General Court's judgment of 2 March 2012 in the State aid dispute between the European Commission and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, ING Groep NV and the Dutch Central Bank (De Nederlandsche Bank NV).

On 1 March 2016 the Court of Justice of the European Union gave its judgment in the joined cases of Ibrahim Alo and Amira Osso, Cases C - 443 / 14 and C - 444 / 14, ruling that the EU's Qualification Directive does not sanction the imposition of restrictions of the freedom of movement for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, and that such a limitation is not justifiable for reasons of territorial sharing of social assistance burdens, while at the same time leaving it up to the referring German Federal Administrative Court to decide whether the limitation can be justified for reasons of migration and integration policy.

Following a one - day hearing on 27 March, that ruling has now been unanimously upheld by the Court of Appeal in a judgment handed down on 23 April.

The Supreme Court of Canada's March 27, 2015 decision in Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General) is an exemplary judgment in upholding the rule of law in the realm of federalism.

Edwards Lifesciences LLC & Ors v Boston Scientific Scimed Inc [2018] EWCA Civ 673 (28 March 2018)-- a Court of Appeal judgment on obviousness and expert witnesses.

The peremptory judgment of the US Court of Appeals last March in SEC v Citicorp was primarily a denouncement of a first - instance judge who believed that he was entitled to second - guess the propriety of what he felt was a derisory settlement in favour of the accused.

On 10 March 2010, the UK Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of Agbaje v Akinnoye - Agbaje [2010] UKSC 13 (Agbaje).

On March 7, 2018, Justice Dunphy of the Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, in Toronto, issued his judgment in the case of Atlas Copco Canada Inc. v. David Hillier, 2018 ONSC 1588.

Supreme Court judgment in Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department (here) Today (25 March 2015) the Supreme Court handed down judgment in this important case concerning the interpretation of the 1954 Statelessness Convention.

The Court delivered a unanimous judgment upholding the March 2012 decision of Henderson J in some respects and overturning it in others.

It said in a letter to the court filed the last week of March that the documents it obtained are so compelling that the judge can decide the case on summary judgment, the New York Times recently reported.

The important question of how much latitude judges have in Ontario to avoid trials by granting summary judgment under Rule 20 is scheduled to come before the Supreme Court of Canada in March in two appeals involving an alleged investor scam.

The lengthy judgment of Lord Justice Lloyd in a decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales released 9 March 2011, contains the following tantalizing sentence:

In re Marriage of Thornton, No. 149529 (California Court of Appeals, Second District, January 16, 2002): The separation agreement of the parties, incorporated into the judgment of divorce, provided that the husband shall pay alimony until the death of either party, or until March 2003.

In its judgment delivered today in the case Identitoba and Others v Georgia the European Court of Human Rights has held the Georgian authorities responsible for homophobic violence against participants of a pride march in 2012.

On Wednesday 22nd March 2017, the Supreme Court handed down their judgment in the case of N v ACCG (2017) UKSC 22.

In a judgment on 1 March, Judge Richard Leon in the US District Court for the District of Columbia confirmed the award, which Vancouver - based Rusoro obtained in 2016 in a claim under the Canada - Venezuela bilateral investment treaty financed by Calunius.

On 9 March 2011, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom delivered its judgment in the conjoined appeals of Sienkiewicz (Administratrix of Mrs Enid Costello) v Greif (UK) Ltd and Willmore v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council [2011] UKSC 10.

There is a general misunderstanding about the revision judgment that was delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on 20 March 2018.

On March 4, 2014, Judge Lewis Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the $ 9.5 billion judgment against Chevron in Ecuador was the product of fraud and racketeering activity, finding it unenforceable in the United States and holding Steven Donziger liable for RICO violations.

On Wednesday 22nd March 2017, the Supreme Court handed down their judgment in the case of N v ACCG... Read More

On 16 July 2009, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Hutchison 3G UK Limited (H3G) of the Competition Appeal Tribunal's (CAT) judgment, which upheld Ofcom's finding in March 2007 that H3G has significant market power (SMP) in the market for the provision of MCT.

By order made March 22, 2013, Roberston J. of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court recognized the US Judgments and made them an order of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia pursuant to section 4 (5) of the JVTA.

The decision follows a high court judgment in March, which found the essentially public nature of adoption services meant respect for religious views could not be a justification for discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation.

On March 19, 2013, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) released its judgment in Cornish v. Ontario Securities Commission, on appeal from a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission (the «Commission») issued September 28, 2011.

The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted, and it is ordered that the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, case No. 3:15 - cv - 00421, entered January 27, 2017, amended February 22, 2017, and corrected March 15, 2017, is stayed pending disposition of the appeal in this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 21, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should now be reviewed by this Court.

Re DAM (Children)[2018] EWCA Civ 386 (8 March 2018)-- Court of Appeal criticism of judge's reasoning not being clear in care order judgment.

On 17 March 2009 Ms Raw lodged a complaint alleging failure to return the children, and on 16 April the Poitiers Court of Appeal upheld the judgment in her favour.

On March 14 2018 the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered judgment on Astellas Pharma v Helm AG and FIMEA in which Astellas challenged a previous decision..

On March 26, 2014, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) issued reasons for judgment certifying the proceedings commenced in Ontario as a class proceeding.