In 2001 only the federal appeals court covering the states of Connecticut, New York, and Vermont had upheld the use of race in student assignment or magnet school admissions in school districts not
already under court order; it did so on the grounds that the state had a compelling interest in racial diversity.
Not exact matches
Instead of some of my policies
already being enshrined as precedent from being «blessed» by the
courts, all of them would be up to be struck down (which is much tougher if they've
already been set as standing precedent), which is why I referred to even laws as potentially being no more enduring than an Executive
Order,
under this scenario.
[65] There are indeed many decisions of this
Court and the Court of Appeal, under the FLA and its predecessors, holding that a spouse who has already commenced proceedings and obtained orders in a foreign court should generally not be permitted to bring separate proceedings in British Columbia addressing the same dis
Court and the
Court of Appeal, under the FLA and its predecessors, holding that a spouse who has already commenced proceedings and obtained orders in a foreign court should generally not be permitted to bring separate proceedings in British Columbia addressing the same dis
Court of Appeal,
under the FLA and its predecessors, holding that a spouse who has
already commenced proceedings and obtained
orders in a foreign
court should generally not be permitted to bring separate proceedings in British Columbia addressing the same dis
court should generally not be permitted to bring separate proceedings in British Columbia addressing the same dispute.
However, the situation
under the provincial Family Law Act was different: the Ontario
court could still rule on questions relating to child support, since the foreign
court in China had not
already done so in its divorce
order.
Under some plea - bargain agreements, the
court may
order you to participate even if you
already had attended the DDP within the previous five years.