Sentences with phrase «adopted by federal court»

Similarly, it is no argument against the position adopted by the Federal Court of Appeal in Forest Ethics or the one proposed by Stratas J.A. in Maritime Broadcasting that deference was given on questions of substance, because that assumes the answer to the threshold question of whether the Dunsmuir framework applies at all to «procedural» decisions.

It says proposed discovery reforms will save litigation costs for both parties and would be in line with what already has been adopted by federal court.

Not exact matches

Before the federal court as we write is a case brought by the U.S. Attorney against a co-op building on the Lower East Side for refusing a woman permission to keep a stray pit bull she adopted.

This agreement was part of the resolution reached by the Federal Government and other parties in a suit filed on behalf of the victims and adopted on Monday by the Community Court of the Economic Community of West African States in Abuja as its judgment.

Due Process properly includes all substantial rights protected by the Procedures of English Courts of Law or Equity when the federal Bill of Rights was adopted.

The California law, adopted first, faced two court challenges from SOCE practitioners on the grounds that it violated their free speech rights, but last August a federal appeals court upheld the statute, distinguishing between the rights practitioners enjoy to advocate for the practice in public debate and the limitations on the therapeutic practices they can employ in their professional conduct governed by state licensing.

As required by executive orders and a 2008 court ruling, federal agencies use the SCC to inform regulators about the economic consequences of rules they adopt.

• Commitment to federal laws established by Supreme Court rulings: OCR's current reading of its authority under Title IX goes beyond the narrow interpretation adopted by the Supreme Court in two decisions that addressed the sexual harassment issue, even explicitly rejecting the rulings in guidelines issued under the Clinton administration.

The sizeable drop in incarceration has resulted largely from a series of policy changes adopted by state policymakers and the voters in the wake of the federal court order.

P. 52 (a)(6) mandates this more deferential standard of review and nothing in the Court's jurisprudence or the rationales adopted by the Federal Circuit in Cybor permitted a different standard.

(Canada does not have and, so far as I am aware, has never even debated whether we should adopt the Erie doctrine with respect to the provincial law to be applied by the Federal Court.)

According to the opinion by Judge William Bauer, the law is ambiguous on how to measure value, and federal appeals courts have adopted a variety of approaches.

On October 4, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an en banc decision rejecting certain procedures adopted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) limiting a patent owner's ability to amend claims during Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings under the America Invents Act.

The court, tackling choice of law rules to determine applicable state law to analyze the preclusive effect of the prior court decisions, embraced the notion that «nationwide uniformity in the substance of the matter is better served by having the same - preclusive rule (the state rule) apply whether the dismissal ordered by a state or a federal court... [Thus, the court adopts] the law that would be applied by state courts in the State in which the federal diversity court sits.»)

The OPC adopts the case - by - case balancing of interests approach endorsed by the Federal Court of Appeal in a Privacy Act case called Pirrie: «In determining the right to have access to this information under PIPEDA, the interests of the individuals concerned should be balanced against each other along with the public interest for and against disclosure.»

Administrative law — Judicial review — Municipal law — Taxation — Real property tax — Payments made by Federal Crown in lieu of real property tax — Assessed value of Halifax Citadel — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister is unconstrained by the assessed value of the property determined by the assessment authority in determining the property value of a federal property for purposes of the PILT Act — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister acted reasonably in determining the property value of the Halifax Citadel lands (adopting the determination of the Dispute Advisory Panel appointed under the Act), and in particular in valuing the portion of the lands upon which are located improvements which are exempt from payments in lieu of taxes, representing 47 of 49 acres of the site, at $ 10 — Whether the Court should consider the present case as it raises similar issues as Montréal (City) v. Montréal Port Authority 2010 SCC 14, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 427, but from the perspective of assessed value — Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Federal Crown in lieu of real property tax — Assessed value of Halifax Citadel — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister is unconstrained by the assessed value of the property determined by the assessment authority in determining the property value of a federal property for purposes of the PILT Act — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister acted reasonably in determining the property value of the Halifax Citadel lands (adopting the determination of the Dispute Advisory Panel appointed under the Act), and in particular in valuing the portion of the lands upon which are located improvements which are exempt from payments in lieu of taxes, representing 47 of 49 acres of the site, at $ 10 — Whether the Court should consider the present case as it raises similar issues as Montréal (City) v. Montréal Port Authority 2010 SCC 14, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 427, but from the perspective of assessed value — Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister is unconstrained by the assessed value of the property determined by the assessment authority in determining the property value of a federal property for purposes of the PILT Act — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister acted reasonably in determining the property value of the Halifax Citadel lands (adopting the determination of the Dispute Advisory Panel appointed under the Act), and in particular in valuing the portion of the lands upon which are located improvements which are exempt from payments in lieu of taxes, representing 47 of 49 acres of the site, at $ 10 — Whether the Court should consider the present case as it raises similar issues as Montréal (City) v. Montréal Port Authority 2010 SCC 14, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 427, but from the perspective of assessed value — Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. federal property for purposes of the PILT Act — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister acted reasonably in determining the property value of the Halifax Citadel lands (adopting the determination of the Dispute Advisory Panel appointed under the Act), and in particular in valuing the portion of the lands upon which are located improvements which are exempt from payments in lieu of taxes, representing 47 of 49 acres of the site, at $ 10 — Whether the Court should consider the present case as it raises similar issues as Montréal (City) v. Montréal Port Authority 2010 SCC 14, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 427, but from the perspective of assessed value — Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister acted reasonably in determining the property value of the Halifax Citadel lands (adopting the determination of the Dispute Advisory Panel appointed under the Act), and in particular in valuing the portion of the lands upon which are located improvements which are exempt from payments in lieu of taxes, representing 47 of 49 acres of the site, at $ 10 — Whether the Court should consider the present case as it raises similar issues as Montréal (City) v. Montréal Port Authority 2010 SCC 14, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 427, but from the perspective of assessed value — Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. M - 13.

Practitioners should also carefully follow proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Evidence which are currently undergoing review by the Supreme Court and which, if adopted, would essentially codify the Daubert and Kumho decisions.

Although soon overturned by a state constitutional amendment adopted by initiative, the opinion presaged the U.S. Supreme Court's decision seven years later under the federal constitution that superseded the initiative.

The Court's decision in California State Teachers» Retirement System v. Alvarez — a suit brought on behalf of Wal - Mart Stores, Inc. — refused to adopt the Delaware Court of Chancery's recommendation that, as a matter of federal due process, a judgment in one derivative action should not bind the corporation or its stockholders in another derivative action unless either (i) the first action has survived a motion to dismiss because a pre-suit demand on the corporation's board of directors would have been futile or (ii) the board has given the plaintiff authority to proceed on the corporation's behalf by declining to oppose the derivative suit.

By analogy, when a state legislature fails to adopt a redistricting plan that complies with the constitution, which is normally a political question, this failure to act allows a federal court to craft a redistricting plan as a remedy for the failure of the legislature to act, in order to protect the constitutional rights of voters and candidates in future elections, even though no express language of the constitution or statute addresses the remedy when a state legislature fails to pass a redistricting plan.

[A proposed Article of Amendment authorizing the General Court to impose and levy a graduated income tax and to base such tax upon the federal income tax, adopted by the General Court during the sessions of the years 1969 and 1971, was rejected by the people on the seventh day of November, 1972.]

This decision shows that a «segmentation» strategy by respondents to whole of country native title claims may actually be rewarded by the kind of reasoning adopted by the Full Federal Court in this case.

The option for institutional reform adopted by the government was to provide the tribunal with an exclusive mediation role, with the Federal Court able to intervene at any time.

«The application was based on the commissioner's allegation that a certain rule adopted by the board is anti-competitive because it substantially lessens competition among Realtors in the Greater Toronto Area who are members of the board,» said the Federal Court of Appeal's Reasons for Judgment, written by Justice J. A. Sharlow.