Sentences with phrase «public policy considerations do»

Public policy considerations do enter into the discussion, apart from property interests.

Not exact matches

Powell has in the past expressed a view that Fed communication «should do more to emphasize the uncertainty that surrounds all economic forecasts, should downplay short - term tactical questions such as the timing of the next rate increase, and should focus the public's attention instead on the considerations that go into making policy across the range of plausible paths for the economy.»

The Honourable Sergio Marchi, CEO of the Canadian Electricity Association, used his keynote address on the conference's second day to deliver a similar message, noting that Canada's non-emitting electricity supplies are key to capturing new clean growth opportunities and doing so requires new approaches to the planning and operation of the electricity grid, policy considerations and public education.

Whether Uber should be able to avoid liability is something that every country can decide for itself based on public policy considerations; the point is that if they do decide that Uber should be liable for damages, their law trumps Uber's contract.

The comments in the Proposed Rule listed examples of willful neglect as: (1) disposal of a hard drive in an unsecured dumpster where the covered entity failed to implement policies and procedures to safeguard PHI during the disposal process; (2) failure to respond to an individual's request for restriction of the uses of PHI where the covered entity did not have any policies and procedures in place for consideration of the request for restriction; (3) a covered entity's employee loses a laptop that contains unencrypted PHI and the covered entity feared for its reputation if the incident became public and decided not to provide the appropriate notification.7

Examples of «willful neglect» from the comments in The Federal Register help define the term: (1) disposal of a hard drive in an unsecured dumpster where the covered entity failed to implement policies and procedures to safeguard PHI during the disposal process; (2) failure to respond to an individual's request for restriction of the uses of PHI where the covered entity did not have any policies and procedures in place for consideration of the request for restriction; (3) a covered entity's employee loses a laptop that contains unencrypted PHI and the covered entity feared for its reputation if the incident became public and decided not to provide the appropriate notification.5 In each of the examples, the covered entity had actual or constructive knowledge of the violations.

In denying summary judgment to GE and granting summary judgment to Boston Edison, the Court found that: (1) while the construction work performed by GE met the definition of an improvement to real property for purposes of the statute of repose, public policy considerations necessitated an exception to the application of the statute in cases involving alleged asbestos - related disease; (2) the installation of asbestos insulation was not an abnormally dangerous activity; (3) Boston Edison did not exercise sufficient control over the work at issue to be held negligent; and (4) a premises owner, such as Boston Edison, has no duty to warn where the subcontractor has knowledge of the hazard which is equal to or greater than that of the premises owner.

The duty of care was not defeated under the second branch of the Anns test, which deals with public policy considerations that would weigh against a duty of care, because it was in the public interest that professional accountants who undertake to create wills do so with care not only for the best interests of their clients but also for the intended beneficiaries under those wills.

In doing so, he noted the issue went beyond Kibria's case to the broader public - policy consideration at stake.

(4) A relevant decision may not be taken except on imperative grounds of public security in respect of an EEA national who: (a) has resided in the UK for a continuous period of at least 10 years before the relevant decision; or... (5) Where a relevant decision is taken on grounds of public policy or public security it shall, in addition to complying with the preceding paragraphs of this regulation, be taken in accordance with the following principles --(a) the decision must comply with the principle of proportionality; (b) the decision must be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the person concerned; (c) the personal conduct of the person concerned must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society; (d) matters isolated from the particulars of the case or which relate to considerations of general prevention do not justify the decision; and (e) a person's previous criminal convictions do not in themselves justify the decision.