Sentences with phrase «supreme court held»

By contrast, the Supreme Court held that «the fall in the number of claims since 2013 was so sharp, so substantial and so sustained as to warrant the conclusion that a significant number of people who would otherwise have brought claims have found the fees to be unaffordable».

The scheme is in response to the Jackson reforms and the decision in Jones v Kaney, where the Supreme Court held that experts could be sued for negligence.

As explained in Tony Mauro's article on the case, and also this analysis at SCOTUSblog, the Supreme Court held that just because a court finds that patent infringement likely took place, that finding does not compel permanent injunctive relief as held by the federal circuit.

The Supreme Court held that this approach would likely lead to the bar being set too high:

The attorney - client privilege survives the death of the client, the U.S. Supreme Court held more than a decade ago in Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399 (1998).

The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had approached the case on an incorrect basis.

The name comes from Terry v. Ohio in which the Supreme Court held that police may briefly detain a person whom they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity; the Court also held that police may do a limited search of the suspect's outer garments for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be «armed and dangerous.»

As the Supreme Court held, in Oakes, an infringement of a charter right can not be saved by Section One if, «because of the severity of the deleterious effects of a measure on individuals or groups, the measure will not be justified by the purposes it is intended to serve.»

In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that the admission of an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect not informed of these rights violates the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, through the incorporation of these rights into state law.

11KBW's Karen Steyn QC appeared in Benkharbouche and Janah (judgment 18 October 2017), in which the Supreme Court held that provisions of the State Immunity Act 1978 preventing...

The Supreme Court held that, where there is a legal requirement to give reasons, what is needed is an adequate explanation of the ultimate decision, leaving no room for genuine doubt as to what it has decided and why.

Legal ethics rules, as I understand the Bates decision, are a restriction on free speech that is allowed because the U.S. Supreme Court held that lawyer advertising is commercial speech.

Since Birth Father's consent to the adoption was not required, the South Carolina Supreme Court held there was no basis to delay the adoption.

In Impression Products, Inc v Lexmark International, Inc, the United States Supreme Court held that «a patentee's decision to sell a product exhausts all of its patent rights in that item, regardless of any restrictions the patentee purports to impose or the location of the sale».

In February 2017, in Life Technologies Corporation v Promega Corporation, the US Supreme Court held that the supply of a single component in a multicomponent patented invention for manufacture overseas does not constitute patent infringement.

In concluding that Hit Man is protected «advocacy,» the district court appears to have misperceived the nature of the speech that the Supreme Court held in Brandenburg is protected under the First Amendment.

In that decision, the Supreme Court held that, except in the exceptional case where a question of pure law arises, the interpretation of a contract is a question of mixed fact and law.

The agreements had been executed by relatives holding powers of attorney granting broad authority to enter contracts, but the Kentucky Supreme Court held that a power of attorney must specifically grant the authority to agree to arbitration.

A written attorney fee agreement that specifies only hourly rates but is not ambiguous can not be modified by evidence that the parties agreed orally to cap the fees, the Texas Supreme Court held in a Houston lawyer's almost decade - old case against a former client.

Today the U.S. Supreme Court held 8 - 1 in Snyder v. Phelps that the state could not impose liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress on Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church for picketing the funeral of deceased soldier Matthew Snyder, at least where «Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials.»

Last week, the Supreme Court held that the prohibition on medical marijuana products intended to be ingested or applied as creams — as opposed to dried medical marijuana for the purposes of smoking, for which a permission can be granted — is arbitrary and, therefore, not in accordance with principles of fundamental justice, in violation of s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Of course, in the Martinez case, the Supreme Court held that states» decisions to relegate IAC claims to collateral review had important implications for the scope of procedural default doctrine in later federal habeas proceedings.

In a highly anticipated copyright decision issued on March 22, the Supreme Court held that the designs on Varsity Brands» cheerleading uniforms are eligible for copyright protection.

In the recent case of Gormley v. Judicial Conduct Commission, Ky., 332 S.W. 3d 717 (2010), the Supreme Court held that a proceeding that satisfies due process is required before a judge can hold a party in indirect criminal contempt in a case.

On Monday, the Supreme Court held that the «machine - or - transformation test,» was not the proper one to apply to business - method patents.

So, as the Supreme Court held in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), «The test is not the form in which state power has been applied but, whatever the form, whether such power has in fact been exercised.»

Applying these conclusions to the present case, the Supreme Court held that both the trial judge and the Court of Appeal had adopted a mistaken approach.

In Walker v Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90 (1876), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the right to a jury trial guaranteed under the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution did not apply to states.

Despite recognizing that some other courts have reached a different conclusion, the Ohio Supreme Court held that jury's weighing of aggravating circumstances against mitigating factors is not a fact - finding process, so it is not governed by Hurst, but even if it were, there was no violation because Ohio law requires the jury to unanimously agree that aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt before the trial judge can consider imposing a death sentence.

The Supreme Court held that the introduction of fees was unlawful: both under domestic and European legislation.

While the Supreme Court held that the state must provide «a fair opportunity for a broad cross-section of society to participate in the jury process,» the majority held that it has no constitutional responsibility to direct efforts towards particular groups that are known to be underrepresented, or to address address any systemic barriers that may limit jury participation by certain segments of society.

In July 2017, the Supreme Court held that tribunal fees are unlawful.

Of course, Parliament's latitude is limited by EU law where relevant, and in Unison the Supreme Court held that the Fees Order was unlawful not only as a matter of domestic law but also as a matter of EU law.

Consent to Settlement Agreement May Not Bar Negligence Claim - The Legal Intelligencer - In Guido v. Duane Morris LLP, the New Jersey Supreme Court held in a June 8 opinion that a client's consent to settlement does not necessarily bar a malpractice action arising from that settlement.

This Restatement provision states that» [o] ne who appropriates the commercial value of a person's identity by using without consent the person's name, likeness, or other indicia of identity for purposes of trade is subject to liability...» Relying on the Restatement, the Missouri Supreme Court held in TCI, 110 S.W. 3d at 369, that «the elements of a right of publicity action include: (1) That defendant used plaintiff's name as a symbol of his identity (2) without consent (3) and with the intent to obtain a commercial advantage.»

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held that where there were two individually claimed compounds, and it was known that one worked and the other did not, the true invention was obscured as the disclosure failed to state in clear terms what the invention was.

Regarding the size of the fee, the Supreme Court held that «where households on low to middle incomes can only afford fees by sacrificing the ordinary and reasonable expenditure required to maintain what would generally be regarded as an acceptable standard of living, the fees can not be regarded as affordable» (para [93]-RRB-.

On February 21, 2018, the Supreme Court held in Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers that the anti-retaliation whistleblower protections under the Dodd - Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the «Dodd - Frank Act») apply only to those who have reported allegations to the Securities and Exchange Commission («SEC») as of the time of the allegedly retaliatory conduct.

In 2004, in Vigil v. Franklin, the Colorado Supreme Court held that the premise liability statute was the sole remedy available against a landowner for injuries sustained on land.

Now Ted at Point of Law has details of another case, this one against Ford, in which the South Carolina Supreme Court held that NHTSA regulations resolved the issue at hand and should not be second - guessed by tort litigation.

In its recent decision in Williams v. Canales 2016 BCSC 1811, the BC Supreme Court held that the costs payable by an insurer who wrongfully denies coverage to its insured are on a special costs basis.

Last March, Justice Fisher of the British Columbia Supreme Court held that the gaming company had no duty to preserve when it destroyed the records.

In Re Solicitors Act 1954, [ii] the Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to give a regulatory disciplinary committee the authority to strike an individual off the roll of solicitors.

In a key sentencing decision handed down this year, the United States Supreme Court held that the Ex Post Facto Clause is violated when a defendant is sentenced under provisions of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines promulgated after he committed the crime and those new provisions result in an increased risk of greater punishment.

For example, in the Employment Division v. Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court held that two Native Americans had been justifiably dismissed from their work after the ingestion of peyote, a powerful entheogen.

Today, the Supreme Court held that it violated the Sixth Amendment for McCoy's lawyer to admit his guilt over his express objection, and it ordered the state of Louisiana to grant McCoy a new trial.

By a majority of 3:2, the Supreme Court held that the creditor under the letters of credit was SOMO alone:

In 1968 the Supreme Court held that an arbitral award could not stand where the arbitrator had failed to disclose a past relationship that might give the impression of possible partiality.

This controversial decision of the BC Supreme Court held that the absolute prohibitions against assisted suicide in the Criminal Code violated sections 7 and 15 of the Charter (the Charter right to «life, liberty and security of the person» and the Charter guarantee of equality, respectively).

The majority of the Supreme Court held there was an apprehension of bias, but it is the test set out in the dissent by Justice de Grandpré that has placed the decision in the top 100 cited cases — over 1,480 citations and counting: