Sentences with phrase «actually make it to court»

There are plenty of Hollywood lawsuits that never actually make it to court, with judges throwing them out before they can get that far - but in this most recent instance, the folks at Warner Bros. aren't that lucky.

Not exact matches

The government, the Supreme Court actually, you know, the one made up of christians and jews but no atheists, said one religion could not be taught to the exclusion of others, and they said ID is not science, just religious creationism in disguise, so can not be taught as science.

Problem definition is time - consuming, a deep journey into our own prejudices and hopes for a Christian faith that actually makes a difference, a horrible awakening that giants of the faith may have little faith in God and more in courts and money, that fame - seekers exist within the church system and garner friends as shields, that a man that marries a second wife may wish to destroy the first wife at any cost, and that authors can indeed write good books but run away from women speaking of their own abuse, and that prior friendships dictate the limits of Christianity....

If it were an accident, the first time it caused rashes and or nose bleeds and diarrhea, they would have written what caused it in my Medical Records to stop others from causing the adverse reactions, but no, they have to try to prevent a Law Suit and write that I am delusional about the adverse reactions so every Doctor after that forced the adverse reactions on me and or refused to give me the Medical Treatment actually need, while they make money off charging the government for the Toxic Harmful Drugs that a Judge ordered them not to give me, tut they just falsely called me delusional about the Court Orders, to made money poisoning me with Toxic Drugs and Rash Creams, but normally they do that to their suspecting Victims to make money off doing Kidney transplants like they did to my Uncle, but they will not replace mine, because that is what they planned to do to kill me, just ask their associate assassin Dr Kanter of the Minneapolis VA, of course he will say I am delusional after he assaulted me saying the other Hospital Labs were wrong about that Blood Test that show the harm they caused.

Once the case actually went to trial in a criminal court, the district attorney dropped the charges, making Hardy a free man.

Either way, my question was whether you actually show up in court and use «Asshole,» as a rebuttal, take insult at every argument, misunderstand everything said to you, and then refuse to address the actual point being made.

An incremental ruling in the Fidler - Storobin race is expected today, (court time: 2:15 p.m.) but it's increasingly possible the winner — whoever that might be — will never actually make it to Albany.

They reportedly discussed marrying after the US Supreme Court struck down a crucial section of the so - called Defense of Marriage Act in June 2013, but didn't actually decide to take the plunge until their children made it clear how important it was for them to see their two dads marry.

And it offers grist to both ideological conservatives and liberals.For conservatives and libertarians, the tragedy reveals the deleterious blowback of nanny state intervention.The social welfare and family court judge tilted to the missing wife's parents, and restricted Josh's visits from his two sons.We should expect Gingrich to run with this story, attacking the liberal nanny state; and how this liberal state's actions have negative unintended consequences.Liberals will also weigh in.The police, 911 distpatcher, and the criminal justice systemas a whole, all failed.The «hard power» of the police state actually made matters worse.As the ideological divide plays out, the tragedy does not end.The young mother / wife is still missing, and presumed dead.The sick Josh is no longer a person of interest.

«Right now, the way they're in the law isn't actually the strongest and we rest a lot on court cases and we want to make sure that now matter what happens on the federal level ever, no matter what happens anywhere else, New York has the strongest, clearest protections as it relates to reproductive protections and right now, oddly, those provisions are in the criminal code.

This is not to say that the left actually does court islam, but it does say that their silence in certain cases makes it seem as they do.

The legal submissions made by News UK in relation to the costs will not be made public, Saunders ruled, as they were not referred to in open court and because the formal cost applications were never actually made.

Actually, it's not easy to make someone contented and asking out on a date is one way of courting someone.

Actually, make that eight, since Justice Thurgood Marshall (Danny Glover, «Mandela») recused himself because he was the Solicitor General when the case was first appealed to federal court.

They alleged in new court documents, obtained by People magazine, that both Cruise and director Doug Liman contributed in part to the accident by making excessive demands on the pilots for the purpose of filming multiple takes — though they themselves are not actually named in the lawsuit.

The NAEP scores they focus on do not correspond in most of the cases to the relevant years in which the court orders were actually implemented; they ignore the fact that, as in Kentucky, initial increases in funding are sometimes followed by substantial decreases in later years; and their use of NAEP scores makes no sense in a state like New Jersey, where the court orders covered only a subset of the state's students (i.e., students in 31 poor urban school districts) and not the full statewide populations represented by NAEP scores.

«What can we expect if we can't rely on our courts to actually lead the way in making sure our kids get an education?»

Just to make it even more confusing, lower courts have already ruled on this specific case, and the result of the ruling is actually very interesting.

It was full of characters on the make - and really did have men called «informers», who hid behind pillars listening for information they could sell, or who actually took people to court in order to receive compensation like modern «ambulance chasers».

Obviously, the parties involved can not simply make outlandish statements while the investigations and court proceedings are still pending, leaving many to wonder what actually took place.

Loan servicers with a court order can actually take money from your paycheck if you don't make payments or fail to ask for hardship consideration.

That's why, for example, expert testimony is allowed in court, but only if the expert is actually competent in the field in question and sticks to making testimony in the field in which they are competent.

I hope that if it's really the case that «Inhofe says politicians worked with the scientific community to make the data fit their message» that it will actually get challenged in the courts, «public figures» or no.

Also, the judge is within his rights to punish the potential juror if he determines that the potential juror is actually lying about his ability to be impartial in an effort to evade jury service rather than because he sincerely believes that he can't be fair, and judges have wide authority to determine the credibility and truthfulness of statements made to him in open court (i.e. if the trial judge finds that you are lying, this determination will almost always be honored by an appellate court considering the judge's actions).

Amazingly, the Court has taken a hopefully complicated and impossible - to - work - out standard and actually made it worse.

A motion is a request you make to the court asking it to take some kind of action other than actually deciding the issues in your case.

Some have attributed this statement to Jackson about the justice who wrote the Supreme Court decision, though it's not clear if Jackson actually said it: «John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.»

The filing of the lawsuit or filing the case, is when you actually submit documents to the court asking that the court makes a decision about who is at fault and how much has to be paid.

I suspect that the real heavy lifting in enhancing access to justice is a matter of procedural reform — specialized decision - making bodies with extremely simplified procedural rules for specific civil law issues (something that actually already exists in certain areas such as Landlord / Tenant, but could be further improved upon), wider permissions for over-the-counter motions, fewer unnecessary court appearances, fewer procedurally - mandated appearances (e.g., going from a Case Conference to a Settlement Conference to a Trial Management Conference, and possibly further, before you can get to a family law trial), and so on.

That way, most people should quickly realize it's deliberately fake, and if someone doesn't and actually tries to take you to court, you can make them look ridiculous.

If, however, you were convicted, and the Court found that you knew that the victim hadn't died at the time of trial, but you did not raise the fact that the victim wasn't dead, it isn't clear if you could have the original conviction vacated because it was a fair trial and you knew evidence sufficient to get yourself acquitted (which you may have refrained from presenting to avoid conviction on a lesser charge like kidnapping or aggravated assault), and the status of an «actual innocence» grounds for vacating a conviction after trial is hotly disputed, conservatives like the late Justice Scalia generally say «no», liberals generally say «yes», moderates like to say «yes» but make it almost impossible to establish except in rare cases like one where a live person walks in when there was a murder conviction for killing that actually living person.

Sam Glover: Partnerships are key then, and buy - in, getting partnerships, getting buy - in from your organization, for the bar, from the courts, that all seems pretty important, because then you've got a really strong case, that we're not just going to do something, it's actually going to make difference because we've got these other people who want it to succeed.

While that seems like a victory for consumers, an article in Forbes makes the case that the court's ruling was actually quite narrow and still permits companies to make a whole range of generalized and dubious health claims.

To make a long story about a magazine suing a band over a font short, the band's bassist also happens to be a lawyer and he defended the band in court — and actually won on the band's motion to transfer the case to CaliforniTo make a long story about a magazine suing a band over a font short, the band's bassist also happens to be a lawyer and he defended the band in court — and actually won on the band's motion to transfer the case to Californito be a lawyer and he defended the band in court — and actually won on the band's motion to transfer the case to Californito transfer the case to Californito California.

«I don't find it as surprising as it has been painted because it seems to me it's part of the type of issue a court will look at and if someone has a mental health issue or has a physical problem that makes it difficult for them to actually care for the child — running after them, bathing them and meeting emotional needs — then it's a valid inquiry for the court,» says Boulby.

Macfarlane says he'd be very surprised to see that happen, saying it's unlikely because it would likely make some people «quite unhappy» and actually offend the justices currently on the court.

"Factcheck.org Makes Factual Misstatement About Timeline Used in Ad: Factcheck.org states that the «ad fails to mention that the «court briefs» it mentions are actually from nearly seven years before the abortion clinic bombing talked about in the ad.»

Actually, there is a level of formality and finality in the Court that makes me reticent to be as flip as I would be on Slaw and other blogs.

«He's great at gaining the court's trust, and making the court actually listen to his submissions, in a way that few advocates can do.

In some instances, a court may decide that while property is held in the name of the deceased, another person actually has the right to that property based on the contributions he / she made to it.

Now that they are out they feel it easy to do a bit of «website research» to trash an institution they actually never understood, and they now want to make a living from that, calling for «research funds» to suggest the Court to get iphones.

The Court of Appeal found this to be an error, noting section 8 damages are intended to compensate the generic manufacturer for sales it actually would have made during the period.

Between the requirements that come with going to court, dealing with client's demands, the need to find new business, plus managing the ins and outs of actually running a successful law firm make it difficult to just stay afloat sometimes.

I would argue that although having an opponent at the table is going to be a non-starter, the courts should be much more carefully examining whether they actually have a sufficient understanding of predictive coding methodology and performance to make a proportionality ruling under Rule 26, since, as the Da Silva court noted, the court's ability to okay its use is rooted in part in the proportionality rule.

If you will be asking the court to make a judgment, even though the other party did not respond or appear, make sure that you can show the court that they actually received the documents.

If a separation agreement or court order requires both parties to make a child support payment to the other (and they actually do), then each of the parents may be eligible to claim a deduction.

70 Because we drew briefs from Westlaw's database rather than directly from state and federal court dockets across the country, our sample is a convenience sample, and we make no claim that the sample represents each federal and state trial court in proportion to the number of summary judgment motions actually filed.

We are at a loss to understand upon what principle of law, applicable to appellate jurisdiction, it can be supposed that this court has not judicial authority to correct the last - mentioned error because they had before corrected the former, or by what process of reasoning it can be made out that the error of an inferior court in actually pronouncing judgment for one of the parties in a case in which it had no jurisdiction can not be looked into or corrected by this court because we have decided a similar question presented in the pleadings.

Allowing the Ontario court to continuing to make orders under the Family Law Act even though the Divorce Act provisions had been trumped was actually a harmonious outcome to ensure child support would be covered.

As such, the Court found the trial judge was correct to use the «comparative blameworthiness» approach and Contributory Negligence Act and «any omissions the trial judge might have made in his reasons — absent proof that he had actually forgotten, ignored or misconceived the evidence at trial — does not constitute palpable and overriding error» (para. 55).