Sentences with phrase «appeal the court found»

Earlier this month, a federal appeals court found the Syrian refugee ban by Indiana governor and GOP vice presidential nominee Mike Pence was based on a «nightmare scenario» of Syrian terrorists posing as refugees to gain US entry.

A federal appeals court found jurors in ex-Sen.

The appeals court found that the trial judge's jury instructions should have included that definition.

But in the jury instructions, the judge's explanation of an official action was too broad, the appeals court found, because it swept in some conduct that the Supreme Court's decision would now exclude.

Although a judge initially ruled that Singh's words constituted an assertion of fact, which would have made it hard for him to win a trial case, in April 2010 an appeals court found that his statement qualified as «fair comment» and was therefore protected.

The appeals court found otherwise.

The Appeals Court found the trial court's initial ruling, including the court's findings of the bad faith tactics of the district, was correct in all aspects.

The appeals court found it was likely many non-pit bull dogs had been mis - identified.

A US appeals court found — properly, in my view — that clicking «Like» on the Facebook page of a political candidate was political speech protected by freedom of expression law.

The Court Martial Appeal Court found the relevant provisions invalid but suspended the ruling until June 21, 2016.

The appeal court found this amount to be «reasonable» and «well within the spousal support guidelines»; in reality, this was simply an inaccurate conclusion on the court's part, no matter how the Guidelines formula was applied.

The ruling overturned an appeals court finding that the 16 - year - old's actions were intended only for his «own juvenile amusement.»»

Furthermore, the Appeal Court found that — even if the trial judge felt it appropriate to give the father some leeway in this regard — the doctor's evidence would likely have made no difference in the orders that were ultimately imposed at trial.

In all three cases the Appeal Court found that no orders for costs should be made against the parties said to have acted unreasonably.

The appeal court found the presumption could be rebutted by alleging fraud, but the trustee did not advance that argument.

The appeal court found no error in the trial court's decision.

However, the Appeal Court found in Mrs Haxton's favour and ordered the company to pay compensation.

In its decision, the appeal court found that the section only applied to exclude other courts in B.C. from hearing matters under the act, and not other courts worldwide.

Assuming a duty of fairness was owed by the adjudicator, the appeal court found that the lawyer must have known that the reasonableness of his accounts and his explanations for them would be a central issue in the taxation hearing.

The Appeal Court found that the unions» action involved an issue that had not yet been decided.

The appeal court found that the judge had adequately identified the salient criteria for determination of testamentary capacity.

The appeal court found that a gift for the benefit of animals was indeed charitable.

Because the arbitral panel's original ruling centred on the lack of particularized evidence about the Unifor bargaining unit, which the Appeal Court found to be unreasonable, it was open to the courts to reverse the panel.

The appeal court found that Gerstenmaier had failed to disclose work that was carried out by his law firm, Haver & Mailänder in Stuttgart, for the Volkswagen Group during the course of the arbitration — creating reasonable doubt as to his independence and impartiality.

The Appeal Court found courts are not bound to accept the «arbitrator's reasons and conclusions».

Finally, the appeal court found errors with the lower court's assumption the accused posed no risk to reoffend.

On appeal, the Massachusetts Appeals Court found that the testimony about the tumor being «possible Stage 1» was properly excluded, but that the testimony about the tumor being likely Stage 2 was improperly excluded.

In a unanimous decision in Lizotte v. Aviva 2015 QCCA 152, the Quebec appeal court found that the provincial legislature made no provision under the Quebec Act respecting the distribution of financial products and services allowing for solicitor - client privilege or litigation privilege to be set aside.

The appeals court found that the two statements were proper because, in the first instance, it rebutted the defense's opening statement that the jury would hear both sides and, in the second instance, it countered defense counsel's closing argument that «the evidence of innocence is compelling.»

The appeals court found that state laws governing «contact sport» claims precluded a negligence claim, and that the defendant was not reckless as a matter of law.

The appeals court found that the trial court acted within its discretion in deciding that the piercing claim should be decided by a jury.

In the ruling last February, the appeals court found that McKesson did have a right of action under a Treaty of Amity between Iran and the United States, as construed under Iranian law.

In the absence of direct language in the statute supporting the agency interpretation, the Appeals Court found that MassDOR's interpretation in Directive 13 - 4 was entitled to no deference due to its «incorrect statutory interpretation.»

The appeal court found the respondent had not intentionally shot the victim, but the gun went off during a physical altercation.

The insurer argued that $ 150 should be considered reasonable because it was the rate accepted by panel attorneys; but the Appeals Court found that the definition of a reasonable fee should be based on market rates, rather than panel rates.

The Appeals court found that it wasn't until after the plaintiff filed her initial complaint, and during the course of discovery, that the plaintiff discovered the hospital had a «Termination of Cervical Spine Immobilization» policy, which stated that only doctors were to remove cervical spine collars.

They might make a ruling about the nature of unappealable TROs vs. appealable temporary injunctions (the appeals court found that although it was called a temporary restraining order, it found that «the district court's order possesses the qualities of an appealable preliminary injunction» — «Ordinarily, temporary restraining orders, in contrast to preliminary injunctions, are not appealable», Bennett v. Medtronic, 285 F. 3d 801.

Appeal court finds police don't need warrant to search cellphones without password protection,

A California appeals court found that Tinder's pricing model for its Tinder Plus service is discriminatory.

In this 2008 reaffirmation of an earlier trial court ruling, a 7th Circuit federal appeals court found that Craigslist could claim CDA immunity because it simply listed information provided by others without editing the information, the same process used in the comments field in the Roommates case.

Even though the lender overcharged for doing credit searches by as much as 10 times, the appeals court found such overcharges didn't violate the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

On appeal the court found the sellers liable and the sales representative liable as well.

The Appeal Court found the trial judge erred in finding the agent liable for not reading the inspector's report

The appeals court found that the broker was entitled to a commission because its contract with Zoll contained a protection clause stating that it was due a commission if a buyer purchased a home shown by the brokerage within 180 days of the expiration of the buyer's representation agreement.

Not exact matches

The Air Force Court of Appeals in May 2017 also reversed a conviction in the sexual assault case U.S. v. Boyce after finding that public statements by Sens. Claire McCaskill and Kirsten Gillibrand regarding the «Marines United» scandal earlier this year created «the appearance of unlawful command influence» in the case, as retired Col. Don Christensen, a former Air Force chief prosecutor and current president of the advocacy group Protect Our Defenders, told Task & Purpose at the time.

Biotechnology entrepreneur William Ardrey faces a retrial on fraud charges after Western Australia's Court of Appeal found the jury had been misdirected in the original court Court of Appeal found the jury had been misdirected in the original court court case.

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.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York also rejected an appeal by MP3tunes founder Michael Robertson, who was ordered to pay $ 12.2 million after a federal jury in 2014 found him liable for copyright infringement.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan reversed a lower court judge's dismissal of investors» antitrust claims against 16 banks, including Deutsche Bank AG, UBS AG, Bank of America (bac) and J.P. Morgan because she found no showing of anticompetitive Court of Appeals in Manhattan reversed a lower court judge's dismissal of investors» antitrust claims against 16 banks, including Deutsche Bank AG, UBS AG, Bank of America (bac) and J.P. Morgan because she found no showing of anticompetitive court judge's dismissal of investors» antitrust claims against 16 banks, including Deutsche Bank AG, UBS AG, Bank of America (bac) and J.P. Morgan because she found no showing of anticompetitive harm.

A federal jury found him guilty in 2010, but an appeals court reversed his conviction, ruling that prosecutors misapplied the federal corporate espionage laws against him.