Sentences with phrase «requires justices of the supreme court»

Removes a provision that requires justices of the supreme court and judges of the court of appeals to retire at 75 years of age.

Not exact matches

By contrast, Delaware Chancery Court Judge Leo Strine, now chief justice of the state Supreme Court, wrote in the Wake Forest Law Review: «Corporate law requires directors, as a matter of their duty of loyalty, to pursue a good faith strategy to maximize profits for the stockholders.»

State Supreme Court Justice Philip Minardo of Staten Island, who is overseeing the Reform Party's lawsuit, required the mayor to be served no later than July 26.

The Assembly voted to close the LLC loophole in campaign finance laws, cap contributions by limited liability corporations at $ 5,000 and require them to identify the individuals who make the donations in the LLC's name, and limit lawmakers» outside income to 40 percent of the annual salary of state Supreme Court justices.

On September 2, 2008, Justice Lucy A. Billings, of the State Supreme Court in the Bronx, NY, issued a decision that Governor Paterson acted within his powers when he required state agencies to recognize same - sex marriages from outside NY State.

(4) The independent panel shall report as approved for each judicial position all highly qualified persons who make application to the panel, provided that if the number of highly qualified applicants exceeds three times the number of existing vacancies to be filled in such position (determined as of the time the panel renders its report), the independent panel shall report as approved the most highly qualified applicants in a number equal to three times the number of vacancies to be filled in such position, provided further that if the number of highly qualified applicants is less than three times the number of vacancies to be filled in such position the independent panel shall report as approved the most highly qualified applicants in a number equal to not less than two times the number of such vacancies, provided further that the following categories of applicants who are eligible for reelection or reappointment shall be reported as approved if their performance during their term of office merits continuation in office, and no other applicants shall be reported as approved for their vacancies: (a) a judge or justice completing a full term of office seeking re-election to that office, or (b) an interim Supreme Court justice who has been appointed by the Governor to fill an existing vacancy no later than the previous June 1 after approval of the Governor's screening panel, who has been confirmed by the State Senate and has assumed office no later than the date the panel renders its report, and who otherwise would not be required to make application to the independent screening panel pursuant to the provisions of sub-paragraph (3).

(3) Neither the Executive Committee nor the County Leader shall designate, nominate or propose any candidate for judicial offices which are to be elected county - wide in New York County, or which are to be proposed for appointment by the Mayor of the City of New York or by the Governor of the State of New York, exclusive of recommendations for interim appointment by the Mayor or the Governor, unless such candidate shall have been approved in that calendar year for such office by the independent panel., except that once a candidate for the office of Justice of the Supreme Court has been reported as highly qualified by at least two of the last four independent screening panels for that office, that candidate shall be considered as having been approved by the panel for such office during each of the four calendar years after the year in which the candidate shall have last achieved such status, (not counting a year in which there are no vacancies for the office of Justice of the Supreme Court other than a vacancy resulting from the expiration of the term of office of a justice eligible for and seeking re-election to that office, or a vacancy which has been filled by an interim Supreme Court justice seeking re-election who has been appointed by the Governor and who satisfies the requirements of sub-paragraph 4 (b), provided in each case that such justice has been determined by the independent panel to merit continuation in office), and such candidate shall not make application to the panel during any of such years unless the Committee on the Judiciary shall require the candidate to make such an appliJustice of the Supreme Court has been reported as highly qualified by at least two of the last four independent screening panels for that office, that candidate shall be considered as having been approved by the panel for such office during each of the four calendar years after the year in which the candidate shall have last achieved such status, (not counting a year in which there are no vacancies for the office of Justice of the Supreme Court other than a vacancy resulting from the expiration of the term of office of a justice eligible for and seeking re-election to that office, or a vacancy which has been filled by an interim Supreme Court justice seeking re-election who has been appointed by the Governor and who satisfies the requirements of sub-paragraph 4 (b), provided in each case that such justice has been determined by the independent panel to merit continuation in office), and such candidate shall not make application to the panel during any of such years unless the Committee on the Judiciary shall require the candidate to make such an appliJustice of the Supreme Court other than a vacancy resulting from the expiration of the term of office of a justice eligible for and seeking re-election to that office, or a vacancy which has been filled by an interim Supreme Court justice seeking re-election who has been appointed by the Governor and who satisfies the requirements of sub-paragraph 4 (b), provided in each case that such justice has been determined by the independent panel to merit continuation in office), and such candidate shall not make application to the panel during any of such years unless the Committee on the Judiciary shall require the candidate to make such an applijustice eligible for and seeking re-election to that office, or a vacancy which has been filled by an interim Supreme Court justice seeking re-election who has been appointed by the Governor and who satisfies the requirements of sub-paragraph 4 (b), provided in each case that such justice has been determined by the independent panel to merit continuation in office), and such candidate shall not make application to the panel during any of such years unless the Committee on the Judiciary shall require the candidate to make such an applijustice seeking re-election who has been appointed by the Governor and who satisfies the requirements of sub-paragraph 4 (b), provided in each case that such justice has been determined by the independent panel to merit continuation in office), and such candidate shall not make application to the panel during any of such years unless the Committee on the Judiciary shall require the candidate to make such an applijustice has been determined by the independent panel to merit continuation in office), and such candidate shall not make application to the panel during any of such years unless the Committee on the Judiciary shall require the candidate to make such an application.

Justice Gerald Connolly of state Supreme Court in Albany dismissed three lawsuits that sought to overturn Black's appointment, ruling that the state education commissioner was within his authority to excuse her from the credentials normally required for the post.

State Supreme Court Justice Francis A. Affronti ruled on Feb. 13 that, based on the legislative history and intent of the education law, the unprecedented board action conflicted with the law, which requires school boards to give access to military recruiters «on the same basis» as any other employment or college recruiters.

At sentencing, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elliott Myers asked the jury — as the Criminal Code requires — to provide a recommendation on the period of parole ineligibility (between the minimum of 10 years and maximum of 25).

During the hearing, two judges apologized «if the building exceeded legislative intent» and Florida Supreme Court Justice Charles Canady promised to issue an order that would require closer scrutiny of future capital projects for courts.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court's conservative majority has rejected a petition from a group of retired judges seeking rules requiring judges and justices to recuse themselves from cases involving significant donors...

Finally, a global initiative hosted by the United Nations and led by high profile policymakers, including US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, has recommended the liberalization of the regulation of legal services in order to allow nonlawyers and community - based organizations and advocacy groups to provide legal services to the poor, stating that «it is likely to improve access to justice for the poor substantially while imposing relatively few costs on society,» and that a «major attraction» of such liberalization is that it may require «fewer government or donor expenditures.Justice Anthony Kennedy, has recommended the liberalization of the regulation of legal services in order to allow nonlawyers and community - based organizations and advocacy groups to provide legal services to the poor, stating that «it is likely to improve access to justice for the poor substantially while imposing relatively few costs on society,» and that a «major attraction» of such liberalization is that it may require «fewer government or donor expenditures.justice for the poor substantially while imposing relatively few costs on society,» and that a «major attraction» of such liberalization is that it may require «fewer government or donor expenditures.»

In the BC Supreme Court, just like in the Ontario Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Justice, people are required to have a case conference before they can do much of anything else.

On the heels of the European Court of Justice's decision, discussed on Slaw here and here, to require Google to suppress links to particular web sites that had «irrelevant and outdated» personal information about a complainant, and US courts» refusal to do the same, the British Columbia Supreme Court has now gone a step further: it has ordered Google to ensure that searches for particular topics or a particular company do not find the company defendant in the action before it.

ABA President Hilarie Bass is denouncing calls for the impeachment of four justices on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for a decision they made requiring the speedy replacement of a congressional map they had struck down.

As for regional representation, in the search last summer to replace Justice Cromwell (who was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada from the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal), the government indicated that an appointment from Atlantic Canada was preferred but not required.

HB 420 (Constitutional Amendment) Requires the judicial selection commission to publicly disclose its list of nominees for appointment to the office of the chief justice, supreme court, intermediate appellate court, circuit courts, or district courts concurrently with its presentation of that list to the governor or the chief justice.

I mentioned last month the raft of legislation filed in the Wisconsin Assembly dealing with judicial recusal, including proposals to require recusal for certain campaign contributions as well as giving the supreme court the ability to force a justice off a case.

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).

Gascon will not be subject to the public hearings Harper introduced with Justice Richard Wagner's appointment and has required of all Supreme Court appointees.

AB 69 Revises provisions governing the recycling of paper and paper products by courts; revises provisions governing the duties of court clerks and justices of the peace in relation to the fees charged by those officials; revises provisions governing the collection and reporting of certain statistical information; changes the term «county clerk» to «clerk of the court» in certain statutes; removes provisions requiring courts provide the Court Administrator certain orders relating to bail forfeitures; repeals provisions governing an offer of judgment; repeals the requirement that the Nevada Supreme Court decide an appeal from judgment imposing the death penalty within a certain period; repeals provisions governing the selection of panels of jurors by boards of county commissioners; revises various other provisions relating to court administracourt clerks and justices of the peace in relation to the fees charged by those officials; revises provisions governing the collection and reporting of certain statistical information; changes the term «county clerk» to «clerk of the court» in certain statutes; removes provisions requiring courts provide the Court Administrator certain orders relating to bail forfeitures; repeals provisions governing an offer of judgment; repeals the requirement that the Nevada Supreme Court decide an appeal from judgment imposing the death penalty within a certain period; repeals provisions governing the selection of panels of jurors by boards of county commissioners; revises various other provisions relating to court administracourt» in certain statutes; removes provisions requiring courts provide the Court Administrator certain orders relating to bail forfeitures; repeals provisions governing an offer of judgment; repeals the requirement that the Nevada Supreme Court decide an appeal from judgment imposing the death penalty within a certain period; repeals provisions governing the selection of panels of jurors by boards of county commissioners; revises various other provisions relating to court administraCourt Administrator certain orders relating to bail forfeitures; repeals provisions governing an offer of judgment; repeals the requirement that the Nevada Supreme Court decide an appeal from judgment imposing the death penalty within a certain period; repeals provisions governing the selection of panels of jurors by boards of county commissioners; revises various other provisions relating to court administraCourt decide an appeal from judgment imposing the death penalty within a certain period; repeals provisions governing the selection of panels of jurors by boards of county commissioners; revises various other provisions relating to court administracourt administration.

SB 1269 Requires any meeting of Supreme Court justices where voting for a candidate for the office of attorney general and reporter occurs to be subject to the open meetings law.

Note also that three Justices wrote concurring opinions expressing concern that other Supreme Court precedent requires courts to give a high degree of deference to a federal agency's interpretations.

There must be some compelling analysis why the interests of justice require in a particular case the extraordinary step of abrogating the other requirements of the Supreme Court Civil Rules.

News reports indicate that at least two members of the New Jersey Senate plan to introduced a constitutional amendment to require New Jersey supreme court justices face voters in yes / no retention elections.

Even if one could say that such treatment reflects some policy of the various foreign states involved, or indeed of the United Kingdom, it goes far beyond any conduct previously recognised as requiring judicial abstention... The critical point in my view is the nature and seriousness of the misconduct alleged in both cases before the Supreme Court, at however high a level it may have been authorised... Sovereign states who without justification and without permitting access to justice detain or mistreat individuals in the course or in relation to their conduct of foreign relations or affairs have sovereign immunity in foreign domestic courts.

A county court judge, circuit court judge, district court of appeal judge, justice of the supreme court, federal district court judge, or federal court of appeals judge serving in this state is not required to comply with the provisions of s. 790.06 in order to receive a license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm, except that any such justice or judge must comply with the provisions of s. 790.06 (2)(h).

In Singh v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1985] 1 SCR 177, a refugee determination case, the Supreme Court agreed that an oral hearing was not always required, but stated that where a serious issue of credibility is involved, «fundamental justice» requires that credibility be determined on the basis of an oral hearing.

Other proposals include: appointing an independent layperson, instead of a judge, to head the selection panels for the lord chief justice and the president of the Supreme Court; transferring the lord chancellor's judicial appointment powers below either the High Court or the Court of Appeal to the lord chief justice; and restricting judicial appointment commission involvement in selecting judicial office holders who do not require a legal qualification.

Although there has been great debate as to the proper level of administrative independence that is required for courts to comply with the requirements of section 11 d) of the Charter, the Supreme Court's objection to decree 2015 - 1071 seems to implicate that IT procurement falls within the definition of «matters of administration bearing directly on the exercise of [a court's] judicial function», to quote justice Le Dain in ValCourt's objection to decree 2015 - 1071 seems to implicate that IT procurement falls within the definition of «matters of administration bearing directly on the exercise of [a court's] judicial function», to quote justice Le Dain in Valcourt's] judicial function», to quote justice Le Dain in Valente.

Formal legislation should be PASSED to require that Supreme Court Justices Abide by the same Code of Ethics as that applying to Federal Judges.

The Supreme Court heard arguments and none of the justices were compelled by the argument that Microsoft was not required to supply the data they could access from the US on the foreign server.

In January 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted cert (meaning that enough of the justices believe the case warrants review) to South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., a case challenging a South Dakota law allowing the state to require that online sellers collect and remit sales tax to the state.