Sentences with phrase «states federal court system»

Not exact matches

And I think that we as state and federal court systems should be moving towards getting rid of peremptory challenges because they're really just an opportunity to discriminate.»

Trump is no stranger to trying to use the legal system to get his way: USA Today found during the 2016 campaign that Trump and his businesses had been involved in at least 3,500 legal actions in state and federal courts over the course of three decades.

The several states have their constitutions, executives, legislatures, and courts, generally modeled after the Federal system and in any event not inconsistent with the Federal Constitution.

The firm has a wide - ranging litigation practice at both the trial and appellate levels of the federal and New Jersey state court systems, having successfully litigated cases up through and including the United States Supreme Ccourt systems, having successfully litigated cases up through and including the United States Supreme CourtCourt.

After the federal Supreme Court case, Citizens United, a state can not stop money from coming into the electoral system.

Controversy over the county's contracting procedures system erupted last year when former State Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R - Rockville Centre) was charged in federal court with influencing the county to award a $ 12 million contract to a company that employed his son.

The bill also would require a twice - annual certification by all federal agencies, federal courts and state governments, in coordination with the Department of Justice, to verify that all relevant data has been reported and uploaded to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System regarding individuals who are not eligible to purchase firearms.

In 2009 the states of Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin filed suit in federal court against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Chicago's Metropolitan Water Reclamation District seeking measures to prevent Asian carp from moving through the Chicago Area Waterway System into Lake Michigan.

Federal courts should insist that states design their education systems to accomplish the aims of the right to education — be they ending inequitable disparities in educational opportunity, preparing students to be competent voters and civic participants, or ensuring that students are equal citizens.

State officials and courts have already grappled with many of these issues, and creating a federal right to education would destabilize policies and decisions that have shaped local school systems for generations,» they say, noting that unlike the federal Constitution, all 50 state constitutions contain provisions that explicitly address educaState officials and courts have already grappled with many of these issues, and creating a federal right to education would destabilize policies and decisions that have shaped local school systems for generations,» they say, noting that unlike the federal Constitution, all 50 state constitutions contain provisions that explicitly address educastate constitutions contain provisions that explicitly address education.

On this point, the Rodriguez court observed that the school - funding systems in Texas and «virtually every other state [would] not pass muster» under strict federal judicial scrutiny.

In the early 1970s, the federal courts ordered a number of states to pay school desegregation costs, but these rulings were limited in number and had little overall effect on state systems for school funding.

The 22,395 - student Federal Way district, located between Seattle and Tacoma, declared in its lawsuit — filed Nov. 21 in King County Superior Court — that the formula violates the state constitutional requirement that the state create a «general and uniform» system of public schools.

Texas created the policy in 1997 after a federal appellate court ruled, in Hopwood v. Texas, that the state's previous affirmative - action system based on racial preferences was unconstitutional.

Legislatures gave teachers collective bargaining rights, the courts began instructing the schools on disciplinary procedures, regulations multiplied, the United States gained a national department of education, and state and federal dollars poured into the system.

The ED could order a state to respond, but if the department elected not to hear an appeal, the complainant could file suit in state court, an odd approach for a federal law to take, given that in our federal system the United States does not define the jurisdiction of state courts.

Recall from prior posts (here, here, and here) that seven teachers in the Houston Independent School District (HISD), with the support of the Houston Federation of Teachers (HFT), are taking HISD to federal court over how their value - added scores, derived via the Education Value - Added Assessment System (EVAAS), are being used, and allegedly abused, while this district that has tied more high - stakes consequences to value - added output than any other district / state in the nation.

He is a frequent speaker and author in the field of school law, and has represented school districts in numerous precedent - setting cases before the Commissioner of Education, and at all levels of the state and federal court system.

Since the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Decision in San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, which established that public education is not a right under the federal Constitution, state courts have been the battlegrounds for resolving disputes regarding public education finance systems.

Federal courts issue desegregation orders when they find that districts or states are maintaining separate educational facilities and systems for students of different races.

I think the «American System» overall would work better were U.S. Courts ---- Federal and State ---- more willing, and more able, to assess to plaintiffs the defendants» costs and expenses for bringing suits which are deemed to be frivolous.

Today, most federal and state court systems have come into the modern age of technology.

The cities had hoped their lawsuit would be heard in state court, since California has an established «public nuisance» law that hasn't been developed in the federal court system.

vLex clients will receive access to Casemaker's full collection of U.S. federal and state case law, codes, regulations, court rules and constitutions, as well as its CaseCheck + negative citator system.

Polimaster Ltd. and NA&SE Trading Co. Ltd. v. Rae Systems, Inc., District Court, Northern District of California, United States of America, 23 January 2009, C 05 - 1887; Joseph Müller A. G. v. Sigval Bergesen, Federal Tribunal, Switzerland, 26 February 1982; Encyclopedia Universalis S.A. v. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, United States of America, 31 March 2005, 04 -0288-CV.

The firm's lawyers» vast experience litigating in several states and federal court systems, combined with their thorough knowledge of numerous professional fields and industries, allows the firm to provide effective, skilled representation to its clients in all matters of general liability litigation.

The attorneys in our construction law practice are skilled litigators with years of experience defending first party and third party construction law claims in both the state and federal trial and appellate court systems.

LawToolBox is an all - in - one court rules provider, custom deadline template provider, and deadline management system that offers solutions for law firms and legal departments to automatically calculate deadlines for matters or projects based on the rules of civil procedure for state and federal courts in all 50 states.

In this extensive article at Ars Technica, Timothy Lee takes stock of online access to federal courts in the United States, chronicling how the system arrived where it is today and how it can be improved.

The Court System In this country, the court system is generally divided into two types of courts, state courts and federal coCourt System In this country, the court system is generally divided into two types of courts, state courts and federal cSystem In this country, the court system is generally divided into two types of courts, state courts and federal cocourt system is generally divided into two types of courts, state courts and federal csystem is generally divided into two types of courts, state courts and federal courts.

John primarily represents large insurance companies, defending them in trial and appellate actions throughout the state and federal court systems.

We are very familiar with our client's legal rights, current drug laws, including both the state and federal criminal court systems.

Michael S. Lieberman is a founding partner whose many years of practice include the successful litigation of numerous complex civil and criminal matters with a particular emphasis in the federal and state appellate court system.

We handle cases in both federal and state courts, and we understand the unique procedures and requirements of the different court systems.

Since a 1947 constitutional revision rewrote the state's judiciary article, New Jersey has operated under a modified federal system for appointment to the state's top courts (Supreme, Appellate Division of the Superior Court, and Superior Court) where governors appoint and the senate confirms any qualified person for an initial term of 7 years.

Marc Gottridge, Lovells» U.S. managing partner, told the Times Online that these traps include the complexity of the federal system, with its «multiplicity of courts, prosecutors and regulators at state and federal levels» and the tradition of targeting corporations as well as individuals in criminal cases.

If, instead of bringing counterclaims in the original lawsuit, the defendant brings a separate lawsuit against the plaintiff, the plaintiff could seek to either (1) consolidate the cases if they are filed in the same court system (i.e. a federal case and a federal case, or a New York State case and a New York State case), or (2) move to dismiss the new lawsuit because the claims were required to be brought in the original lawsuit as mandatory counterclaims, or (3) move to stay proceedings in the second lawsuit pending resolution of the first lawsuit, or (4) move to dismiss the claims in the second lawsuit on the merits if it is apparent from the face of the countersuit that it does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted or was filed in the wrong cState case and a New York State case), or (2) move to dismiss the new lawsuit because the claims were required to be brought in the original lawsuit as mandatory counterclaims, or (3) move to stay proceedings in the second lawsuit pending resolution of the first lawsuit, or (4) move to dismiss the claims in the second lawsuit on the merits if it is apparent from the face of the countersuit that it does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted or was filed in the wrong cState case), or (2) move to dismiss the new lawsuit because the claims were required to be brought in the original lawsuit as mandatory counterclaims, or (3) move to stay proceedings in the second lawsuit pending resolution of the first lawsuit, or (4) move to dismiss the claims in the second lawsuit on the merits if it is apparent from the face of the countersuit that it does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted or was filed in the wrong cstate a claim upon which relief can be granted or was filed in the wrong court.

They also represent the state courts in their relations with the federal court system and serve as the principal mouthpiece for the state courts on Capitol Hill.

Gideon spawned systems for court appointment of criminal defense lawyers in every state and in the federal courts.

As a rule, each State can make its own rules for its court system, and the overarching Federal system has its own rules as well, although they run off of...

He has tried cases in state and federal courts and knows the system well.

Our lawyers are seasoned litigators with years of experience representing clients in the state and federal trial and appellate court systems.

We represent clients before municipal, state, and federal agencies regulating land use and at all levels of the court systems.

We are a team of skilled trial advocates with notable experience handling medical malpractice, car accident, product liability and other complex personal injury claims at every level of the state and federal court system.

Prior to joining IPF, Ms. Dolan spent 5.5 years with the Kentucky's statewide public defender system, the Department of Public Advocacy (DPA), litigating post-conviction cases for capital and non-capital clients in both state and federal court.

He advises large national corporations on complex litigation in the areas of product liability defense, mass tort defense, class action and multidistrict litigation, as well as regional companies and locally owned concerns, in court cases in both state and federal systems.

When litigation is necessary, Janette defends her clients and pursues a diverse array of employment claims in the state and federal court systems, in arbitration, and at the administrative level.

We have over a decade of experience representing hundreds of clients in California State Courts, Northern District Federal Court, the California Department of Labor Standards Enforcement, the California Fair Employment and Housing Commission, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the California Public Employees Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board.

His clients range from major national and regional companies to locally owned concerns, in court cases in both the state and federal systems.

These common - sense reforms will make litigation simpler, less expensive for taxpayers, and more in line with the vast majority of states and the federal court system.