Sentences with phrase «sometimes law reviews»

For example, the sections have robust publishing programs that include books, magazines, sometimes law reviews / journals and newsletters.

Not exact matches

But a review into the Human Rights Act (HRA) launched earlier this summer revealed the law was «widely misunderstood by the public», and sometimes applied wrongly.

Of course, we need to discuss the Law Dome ambiguity clearly and BRIEFLY in the text, and also in the response to «expert» review comments (sometimes, it is hard to use that term «expert»...).

Sometimes, the document review falls through just as quickly for a variety of reasons: Case settled, other legal staffing place got the job, the law firm decides it only needs two document reviewers instead of ten document reviewers.

Administrative law as a practice area sometimes gets a bad rap for being comprised of Byzantine rules of procedure (often completely unique to the specific tribunal in question), frustrating decision makers, and shifting standards of review.

Again, Anisminic is sometimes taken as authority for the proposition that unlawful administrative decisions are nullities, that they never existed in the eyes of the law, with the corollary that judges should not have any discretion to refuse judicial review remedies.

On the other hand, jurors have the power and even the responsibility to review and sometimes ignore what the law requires.

-- deadline (and whether it's a firm deadline)-- what the research will be used in: pleadings (and what kind), speech, law review article, just general curiosity (yes, sometimes I get those too)-- the general area of law (e.g. «debtor / credtor») and specific area if possible («guarantees»; «sureties»)-- if you think this is spoon - feeding with articling students you are sorely mistaken — leading case and / or essential statute / reg or leading article (why sabotage the researcher by saying «but why didn't you find the «insert leading case here» this is all garbage?!»)

Law review articles are sometimes glorified piles of links, and those links might be things you really need.

Sometimes emerging legal issues are most effectively researched using law reviews and bar journals.

In my respectful view, by over-emphasizing the importance of deference in recent years, the Supreme Court has sometimes lost sight of the rule of law principle — the important role of the courts — in judicial review.

In the United States, standards of review are (sometimes nominally) governed by a statute, the Administrative Procedure Act («APA»), which separates questions of law, fact, and policy.

There is a huge variety and complexity to the transactional side of the practice of law, along with a sometimes - mind - numbing quantity of documents to review.

[20] Indeed, the same could be said of review for error of law: sometimes the statutory language will create a wide range of rational outcomes; [21] on other occasions the range will be narrower, perhaps containing only one outcome.

Canadian courts have sometimes described undeferential reasonableness review as «disguised correctness», cases in which a court says it is applying a reasonableness standard but in fact performs its own analysis of the law and the facts to reach an independent conclusion that it labels «reasonable» or «unreasonable».

Or maybe people decide they want university officials to be able to talk to each other without Billy present sometimes, so they pass a statute codifying the officials» administrative practice to have the force of law, to foreclose judicial review.

We recently shared with you the most comprehensive law review article to date on this subject (here)-- authored by Bexis and Reed Smith associate (and sometimes guest blogger) Matt Jacobson — and we have posted about 3D printing here, here, here and here.