Sentences with phrase «u.s. court of law»

This has meant IQ tests have actually prevented individuals from facing «cruel and unusual punishment» in the U.S. court of law.

Oh, and btw, (lol), the test used in U.S. courts of law for whether some one was «threatened» or not is the «reasonable person standard.»

Not exact matches

The appeals court said the emails were beyond the reach of domestic search warrants obtained under a 1986 U.S. law called the Stored Communications Act.

Last year, the New York - based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that the DMCA applied to infringement claims brought under federal and state law, including oldies songs.

U.S. courts have historically been careful about probing the motives behind laws, in part out of respect for the separation of powers between branches of government.

Exactly 20 years ago, just as Cisco's John Chambers took the reins as CEO, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected term limits for Congressional leaders, wiping off the books laws in 23 states limiting the terms of office for U.S. legislators.

The U.S. Supreme Court is clear and straightforward on this, she says: «Modern corporate law does not require for - profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.»

Massachusetts is beefing up security around abortion clinics and scrambling for a legal fix after the U.S. Supreme Court voided the state's buffer zone law that kept protesters 35 feet away, saying it violated freedom of speech.

The Supreme Court had a tradition of upholding U.S. laws when they conflict with international law.

Furthermore, our longtime leadership in corporate law and our Court of Chancery's unmatched expertise in this area have repeatedly earned our state acclaim as the most fair and reasonable legal system for U.S. businesses.

On July 8, the public got its first view into how the U.S. Department of Labor will defend its fiduciary rule when it filed a cross motion for summary judgment, asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to dismiss a law suit brought by the National Association for Fixed Annuities.

A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Philadelphia Taxi Association v. Uber Technologies) reinforces the longstanding principle that antitrust laws protect competition, not competitors.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington ruled in favor of the Fed in 2014, saying the agency had made a «reasonable interpretation» of the law.

Not one executive of any major Wall Street firm that caused the financial crash in 2008 through fraudulent activities was prosecuted by the U.S. Justice Department — which was headed at the time by law partners from Covington & Burling — the Big Tobacco law firm that was singled out in a Federal Court decision for hiding the deadly effects of cigarette smoke for decades.

That petition challenges a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision that, as the Cato Institute, Reason Foundation, and a group of law professors explained in a supporting amicus brief, exacerbates a «system» already «stacked in favor of the government.»

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing Christie et al vs NCAA et al, the crux of which is whether the state of New Jersey can legalize sports betting in its state, despite a 1992 federal law that banned sports betting everywhere in the U.S. except Nevada.

The constitutionality of massive U.S. high - tech spying programs seems likely to be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court before long, unless Congress steps in to clarify surveillance laws that appear hopelessly out of date.

A spokeswoman declined to answer a series of direct questions from CNBC about his case, instead providing a statement from Acting Assistant Attorney General Caroline D. Ciraolo of the Justice Department's Tax Division: «Bradley Birkenfeld was afforded due process of law and sentenced by a federal district court after full consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, including his admission that he advised wealthy UBS clients on how to conceal their assets from the U.S. government,» she said.

There, the High Court held that those who purchase securities on exchanges outside of U.S. borders can not pursue fraud claims under U.S. federal securities laws.

But he also acted in a manner consistent with the rule of law as it has been clearly interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

He successfully argued that foreign and domestic investors had asserted viable «holder claims» seeking to recover investment losses due to their retention of already - owned shares in reliance upon the fraud, which is believed to be the first ruling by a U.S. court sustaining such a theory under English common law.

And unlike Detroit, which was able to file under Chapter 9 of the U.S. bankruptcy code, there's no court process under which Puerto Rico can restructure its debts — unless Congress changes the law.

The debt - restructuring petition was filed by Puerto Rico's financial oversight board in the U.S. District Court in Puerto Rico under Title III of last year's U.S. congressional rescue law known as PROMESA.

Diocesan lawyers filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Hartford May 29 asking that a decision by the Connecticut Office of State Ethics determining the Bridgeport Diocese was subject to laws governing lobbying organizations be overturned.

William Bentley Ball of the Harrisburg, Pa., law firm of Ball, Skelley, Murren & Connell has argued numerous religious freedom cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The suit alleges that the law gives the Ugandans standing to sue Lively for his activities, which had a crucial nexus in the U.S. and therefore come under federal courts» jurisdiction; it also charges that Lively not only advocated bad ideas in an abstract context but helped various Ugandans conceive and manage a campaign of persecution, thus involving himself in a joint criminal enterprise.

Lively, with representation by Liberty Counsel (an evangelical legal organization), responded that in both the U.S. and Uganda he exercised constitutionally protected speech rights; that he opposes violence and neither committed nor plotted any; that Uganda did not in fact pass a proposed draconian anti-gay law, and that in any case Uganda's political institutions, instead of himself, are responsible for its political decisions; and that the court lacks jurisdiction and the plaintiffs lack standing.

«Of course, we're not going to have Sharia law applied in U.S. courts.

Richard Posner, a judge of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in a New York Times op - ed co-authored December 2 with Law Professor Eric Segall, takes Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to task for threatening America with a «majoritarian theocracy» because of his repeated....

The past half - century has witnessed the rise to prominence of a constitutional theory that gives the U.S. Supreme Court a virtual monopoly in American constitutional law.

And, indeed, this was done in the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that declared the Washington State law prohibiting physician - assisted suicide to be unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the guarantee of personal liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

'» As a legal organization, CRLP's mission is to establish and protect the rule of law by advancing women's reproductive rights in the U.S. and around the world, whether at the UN, with governments, or in the courts.

Clerking for the U.S. Supreme Court is the great goal of many elite law students, and it provides a crucial credential for those who want to teach law.

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized since the early nineteenth century that customary international law is a legitimate part of American law.

Richard Posner, a judge of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in a New York Times op - ed co-authored December 2 with Law Professor Eric Segall, takes Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to task for threatening America with a «majoritarian theocracy» because of his repeated dissents, since Lawrence v. Texas, against the expansion of homosexual «rights» as a matter of Constitutional solicitude.

The reporter says that while «legal experts said the First Amendment grants Supreme Court justices, just like any other U.S. citizen, the right to speak their mind,» other experts insist that «Scalia's comments were difficult to reconcile with his judicial obligation to regard citizens of all religious persuasions — whether believer or unbeliever, Christian or non-Christian — as equals under the law.»

Amy Coney Barrett won her nomination to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — despite claims that she was too Catholic to be able to apply the law properly.

The current FCC majority may reject such petitions, but the petitioners have standing to challenge an FCC decision in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where adherence to the law may be expected.

He cites the role of the Bible in teaching literacy; Charles Finney's conversion, brought about by his study of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws; and an 1892 Supreme Court opinion, Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S., which stated, «This is a Christian nation.»

Or a majority might even have been assembled to sustain the laws on abortion, as a majority on the Court had been assembled, just two years earlier, in U.S. v. Vuitch, to sustain a law on abortion in the District of Columbia.

Rubashkin's lawyers claimed Thursday that U.S. District Court Chief Judge Linda Reade, the judge in the case, met with the law - enforcement team that participated in the May 2008 immigration raid of Agriprocessors kosher meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa.

Here's a great article: It shows how the influence of «natural law» was formative to construction of the Constiitution and how regard for such has waxed and waned throughout time in the U.S. Supreme court.

In June»98 a U.S. District Court in Maryland threw out the suit in summary judgment, ordering Antonious to pay Spalding's court costs and issuing a $ 30,000 sanction against Stroup's law firm, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, for failing to do an adequate prefiling investigation of Antonious's clCourt in Maryland threw out the suit in summary judgment, ordering Antonious to pay Spalding's court costs and issuing a $ 30,000 sanction against Stroup's law firm, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, for failing to do an adequate prefiling investigation of Antonious's clcourt costs and issuing a $ 30,000 sanction against Stroup's law firm, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, for failing to do an adequate prefiling investigation of Antonious's claims.

Judicial Law Extern U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana January 2017 — May 2017 (5 months) Greater New Orleans Area

Judge Wilken, and later three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, concluded that the NCAA and its nearly 1,300 members violated antitrust law by unlawfully conspiring to prevent players from negotiating the monetary value of their names, images and likenesses.

Rosa Aliberti Rosa has worked on diverse labor and employment law matters, including wage and hour cases; workplace investigations; severance, employment, and non-compete agreements; has drafted and responded to discrimination complaints before government agencies, including the U.S. EEOC and NYS Division of Human Rights; and, has assisted in federal and state court litigations.

Once the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on a matter of U.S. Constitutional law, the only ways to change it are either for the Supreme Court to overturn their decision in a later ruling on a different case or for the U.S. Constitution to be amended, according to the process set out in Article V.

It's ABSURD to suggest that ANY U.S. court (at the federal or state level) is going to suddenly ignore over 200 years of American legal precedent and decide a case based on Islamic law.

In a celebrated case brought by a group of civil libertarians to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1942, Chief Justice Robert Jackson, against the strong argument of civil libertarians on the issues of «interrogation without the due process of law» and prolonged detention of suspects, gave his famous ruling that the United States «Constitution is not a suicide pact».

One can certainly point out that after the Skelos and Silver convictions the definition of the law known as «Honest Services Fraud» was greatly narrowed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the corruption case of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.