Sentences with phrase «acted in the cases deciding»

Not exact matches

Board members decide their own pay, but in this case, the dispute is over whether it was excessive and whether the board acted in shareholders» interests.

This seemed to contradict the traditional view of free will and mental causation as it indicated that our awareness of the will to act (in this case to move a finger, etc) occurs after the brain has decided to act - suggesting that our self - consciousness regarding free will is, in fact, mistaken.

Yet deciding what it means to act justly in particular situations (whether it's a case of affirmative action or the huge global inequalities in living standards) is highly controversial.

Last fall Bryson decided that, under the Clean Water Act, it would need a permit to discharge lead, based on a similar case involving a U.S. Navy firing range in Puerto Rico.

Showing some of the complexities of a case — which includes jurors having to decide whether actions Percoco took constituted «official acts» — Caproni wrote 44 pages of instructions she read to jurors on Thursday in the lower Manhattan courtroom.

Kierkegaard would call this a «leap of faith» and Sartre would call it «radical freedom», but in either case it is up to you decide what is important to you and act accordingly.

The Supreme Court this week heard two cases that could decide marriage rights for gay couples — one challenging Prop 8 in California and, today, another challenging the Defense of Marriage Act.

Lowell, who represented Williams's former company in the McDonnell case, said prosecutors would now have to decide in the cases of Menendez and others «whether the allegations go to what the Supreme Court said was the public official's authority to act, and to be doing more than what is the typical, expected constituent service that our system depends on.»

If she finds he has a case to answer, the Committee will have to decide what penalty to impose; deliberating for the first time in the context of the Recall of MPs Act 2015 under which a suspension of ten sitting days or more would trigger the first recall petition process in Carmichael's constituency.

In another case decided in April the U.S. District Court for the District for Montana rebuked the FWS for apparently bowing to political pressure and ignoring climate change science when it withdrew its proposal to list wolverines as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 201In another case decided in April the U.S. District Court for the District for Montana rebuked the FWS for apparently bowing to political pressure and ignoring climate change science when it withdrew its proposal to list wolverines as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 201in April the U.S. District Court for the District for Montana rebuked the FWS for apparently bowing to political pressure and ignoring climate change science when it withdrew its proposal to list wolverines as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 201in 2014.

Arrive early to get the best selection (and if you think you're early — arrive fifteen minutes earlier), grab everything you think you may want and decide later, and always bring plenty of credit cards, just in case your usual one acts up.

After last year's cornucopia of fresh, new winners in so many categories (Jeff Daniels, Tony Hale, Merritt Wever), this year the Emmys decided to hold onto its security blanket of safety with every single Comedy and Drama acting winners having either won for their respective roles before (everyone but Allison Janney) or was at least still a previous Emmy winner (in Janney's case, a winner already this year!).

There will be two different variations of Crowd Play, one where the player has to pick whichever choice gets the most votes (in the case of a tie, the player will act as the tie - breaker), and one where the player can still make the final call themselves, potentially upsetting the masses if they decide to go against the popular choice.

The CJEU's job is to work with national courts and to provide assistance on the meaning of EU law, not to decide cases or in any way to act as a Court of Appeal.»

Although the Copyright Modernization Act, did, in fact, introduce a number of amendments, Subsection 80 still reads as it does when the BMG case was decided.

In a case decided yesterday by the General Court this tension between secrecy needed for the effective conduct of negotiations and the right of citizens to be informed was readily apparent in determining whether the Commission was acting lawfully in its decision to refuse access to documents related to those negotiations to European Member of Parliament Sophie in «t VelIn a case decided yesterday by the General Court this tension between secrecy needed for the effective conduct of negotiations and the right of citizens to be informed was readily apparent in determining whether the Commission was acting lawfully in its decision to refuse access to documents related to those negotiations to European Member of Parliament Sophie in «t Velin determining whether the Commission was acting lawfully in its decision to refuse access to documents related to those negotiations to European Member of Parliament Sophie in «t Velin its decision to refuse access to documents related to those negotiations to European Member of Parliament Sophie in «t Velin «t Veld.

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 25 says that the «duty» of the court in deciding whether to make an order is to have regard to «all the circumstances of the case» (emphasis added); and, in particular, to a variety of present and future — when the application bites — factors.

Shapiro cites cases such as McDonnell v. United States, decided in 2016, in which the court unanimously reversed the conviction of a former Virginia governor on the basis that meeting with constituents who seek favors is not one of the «official acts» that can be prosecuted under public - corruption statutes.

In part, the Crown explained that it decided to wait until the MOL's investigation was complete before proceeding with criminal negligence charges and argued that it acted expeditiously in the factual context of the casIn part, the Crown explained that it decided to wait until the MOL's investigation was complete before proceeding with criminal negligence charges and argued that it acted expeditiously in the factual context of the casin the factual context of the case.

Section 98 (4) of ERA 1996 says that a court has to establish whether an employer acted reasonably or unreasonably and that this should be decided in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case.

If there are accusations about domestic violence in a child custody case, the judge has to hold an «evidentiary hearing» (a trial before a judge without a jury) to decide whether a parent has engaged in one or more acts of domestic violence against the other parent, the child, or another family or household member.

Recent highlights include acting for a window installer company in a case regarding an injury sustained by a fitter as a result of a faulty risk assessment, where the HSE eventually decided not to prosecute.

The Alabama Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) applies in cases where a custody decision is made or which impact access to a child — including divorce, legal separation, neglect, dependency, guardianship, paternity, termination of parental rights, and protection from abuse concerning the legal custody, physical custody and visitation of children are decided.

As specified in section 25 of BC's Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, the case manager would have authority not only to decide which dispute resolution methods are to be used, but also to require the parties to participate in proceedings using said methods.

The Uniform Jurisdiction Act was begun before all the SCC cases had been decided — but there could still be an argument in support of a legislative safe harbour, rather than having to work through all the factors of «real and substantial connection» every time one wants to launch a action.

The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 25 (1) provides: «It shall be the duty of the court in deciding whether to exercise its powers under section 23, 24, 24A or 24B above and, if so, in what manner, to have regard to all the circumstances of the case, first consideration being given to the welfare while a minor of any child of the family who has not attained the age of eighteen.»

There will be many cases where it should be clear from the start, or soon becomes evident, that any alleged failure of this kind, however reprehensible, can have no bearing on the reason why the respondents did the act complained of, which in cases of direct discrimination is what the tribunal has to decide.

Yes, in that, in both cases, you are acting contrary to the proper nature of being a judge (deciding objectively according to the facts and law), and instead are acting in whatever way gives you some form of profit.

Accordingly, the tribunal in this case should have asked itself two questions when deciding the issue of dishonesty: first, whether the first appellant had acted dishonestly by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people; and, second, whether he had been aware that by those standards he was acting dishonestly.

A number of Surrey equal division of family property cases have been decided since our new Family Law Act came into force in March of 2013.

While deciding HRC Shipping case, the learned court had drawn upon the reasoning used in the landmark Indian case, Bhatia International v Bulk Trading SA [3], where the Court held that the Act itself did not state that it would not apply if the place of arbitration is not in Bangladesh or that it would apply only if the place of arbitration is in Bangladesh.

After that the court still has the power (and duty: FPR 2010 r 1.4 (2)(e)-RRB- to control the calling of evidence by deciding whether or not to give permission; and in so doing the case management judge must decide whether the evidence is «reasonably required» to resolve issues before the court (civil proceedings generally: CPR 1998 r 35.1), or in the case of family proceedings whether it is «necessary to resolve the proceedings» (Children and Families Act 2014, s 13 (6)(children proceedings); FPR 2010 r 25.4 (3)(other family proceedings)-RRB-.

The filing of an amicus brief is a discretionary act, and the office of the Solicitor General enjoys wide latitude in deciding whether to intervene as an amicus in any particular case.

In this case, the court held that even when parties initially elect to submit a custody dispute to an arbitrator or to the friend of the court, they can not waive the authority that the Child Custody Act confers on the circuit court to decide the best interests of the child as it relates to custody.

We found no other states that have made text message rulings; however, in the 2009 Ninth Circuit case Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., the court decided that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act prevents companies from using automatic telephone dialing systems to send advertisements to consumers.

In each case, the respective judges had followed Stubbings v Webb [1993] AC 498, [1993] 1 All ER 322 in which the House of Lords unanimously decided that s 11 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) does not apply to a case of deliberate assault, including acts of indecent assaulIn each case, the respective judges had followed Stubbings v Webb [1993] AC 498, [1993] 1 All ER 322 in which the House of Lords unanimously decided that s 11 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) does not apply to a case of deliberate assault, including acts of indecent assaulin which the House of Lords unanimously decided that s 11 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) does not apply to a case of deliberate assault, including acts of indecent assault.

In this case, perhaps the court might decide that the only easement was one that the Act guaranteed, and that the Act guaranteed that its boundaries were those shown in the reference plaIn this case, perhaps the court might decide that the only easement was one that the Act guaranteed, and that the Act guaranteed that its boundaries were those shown in the reference plain the reference plan.

The last time the court scheduled an oral argument in September was to decide the constitutionality of the McCain - Feingold Act in the McConnell case.

The driver's circumstances were similar to a case previously decided by the Supreme Court, in which an employee had asserted claims under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act.

The court explained that the city would not need to go as far as to show that it knew of the specific hole and decided not to fill it, but more was necessary than what was shown in this case to prove that the alleged act or omission was discretionary in nature.

Nevertheless, even in cases involving serious acts of violence, a court will still apply the contextual approach set out the Supreme Court of Canada in McKinley before deciding whether summary dismissal is the proportionate response to the act of workplace violence.

The jury had decided the case in favor of plaintiff, who alleged negligence, negligence per se and intentional infliction of emotional distress, concluding also that defendant nursing home had acted with reckless disregard for the rights of others, resulting in a $ 10,000 punitive damage award tacked onto the $ 1.2 million in compensatory damages.

For arbitration cases where mediation might be useful, the parties can employ what is called «blended mediation / arbitration,» in which the third - party neutral acts initially as the mediator to see if the parties can reach an agreement on many disputes and then acts as the arbitrator, deciding the disputes the parties can not agree upon.

Having first decided that they were bound to consider the sufficiency of the plea to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, and having decided that this plea showed that the Circuit Court had not jurisdiction, and consequently that this is a case to which the judicial power of the United States does not extend, they have gone on to examine the merits of the case as they appeared on the trial before the court and jury on the issues joined on the pleas in bar, and so have reached the question of the power of Congress to pass the act of 1820.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Nov. 28 in a case that will undermine internal whistle - blowing reporting programs if the high court decides that the Dodd - Frank Act requires whistle - blowers to report securities violations to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), according to Greg Keating, an attorney with Choate, Hall & Stewart in Boston.

Given the case was decided on the law prior to the coming into force of the Care Act 2014 («Care Act») this paper will also consider how far the changes in the ordinary residence test are affected.

One firm that pursued many web accessibility actions under Title III and California's Unruh Act (including a success in the Bags N» Baggage case decided in plaintiff's favor by a California state court) is now going after employers.

Patent experts had a certain right to be suspicious: when the PTAB started deciding patent cases in 2012 as part of the America Invents Act, 17 of the first 20 challenges that made it to a final decision resulted in losses for the patent holders.

In autumn 2017, Richard decided to return to act as counsel in such cases, representing the Approriate AuthoritIn autumn 2017, Richard decided to return to act as counsel in such cases, representing the Approriate Authoritin such cases, representing the Approriate Authority.

Meanwhile, in the Georgia federal court case brought as a class action against Oasis Legal Finance, Judge Dudley Bowen dismissed one element of the lawsuit, and two other counts remain to be decided - including whether Oasis violated the state's Payday Lending Act.