Sentences with phrase «appealing a court decision requiring»

The mayor has appealed a court decision requiring him to release the records of the NYPD officer at the center of Eric Garner's death, Daniel Pantaleo, event though he's said he believes the law should be changed and the records should be public.

In a statement, Garner's mother, Gwen Carr, said, «De Blasio should be ashamed of himself» for appealing a court decision requiring him to release a summary of substantiated claims against Pantaleo.

Not exact matches

And if the Court of Appeal says this driver is an employee, then every court in California would be required to rely on that deciCourt of Appeal says this driver is an employee, then every court in California would be required to rely on that decicourt in California would be required to rely on that decision?

filed an emergency petition to U.S. Supreme Court to stop the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal's premature move requiring same - sex «marriage» licenses in California, weeks before the Supreme Court's decision even goes into effect.

The appeals court said Judge Valerie E. Caproni's instructions to jurors in 2015 did not comply with a later U.S. Supreme Court decision that narrowed the acts required to convict public officials in a quid pro quo bribery scheme to formal exercises of government power, not just meetings or telephone ccourt said Judge Valerie E. Caproni's instructions to jurors in 2015 did not comply with a later U.S. Supreme Court decision that narrowed the acts required to convict public officials in a quid pro quo bribery scheme to formal exercises of government power, not just meetings or telephone cCourt decision that narrowed the acts required to convict public officials in a quid pro quo bribery scheme to formal exercises of government power, not just meetings or telephone calls.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that there was sufficient evidence to convict the veteran legislator in two corruption schemes, but jury instructions didn't comply with a new Supreme Court decision narrowing the type of acts required of public officials in a quid - pro-quo bribery scheme to formal exercises of government power.

«It is not clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have reached the same conclusion if properly instructed, as is required by the law for the verdict to stand,» Jose Cabranes of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision said in his decision.

According to the Court of Appeal, Metuh and his company failed to first obtain the leave of either the trial court or the appellate court before filing a notice of appeal as required by the constitution when filing an appeal against an interlocutory decision, on the grounds of mixed law and fCourt of Appeal, Metuh and his company failed to first obtain the leave of either the trial court or the appellate court before filing a notice of appeal as required by the constitution when filing an appeal against an interlocutory decision, on the grounds of mixed law and Appeal, Metuh and his company failed to first obtain the leave of either the trial court or the appellate court before filing a notice of appeal as required by the constitution when filing an appeal against an interlocutory decision, on the grounds of mixed law and fcourt or the appellate court before filing a notice of appeal as required by the constitution when filing an appeal against an interlocutory decision, on the grounds of mixed law and fcourt before filing a notice of appeal as required by the constitution when filing an appeal against an interlocutory decision, on the grounds of mixed law and appeal as required by the constitution when filing an appeal against an interlocutory decision, on the grounds of mixed law and appeal against an interlocutory decision, on the grounds of mixed law and facts.

A recent appeals court ruling in a case that grew out of PSEG Long Island's expansion of an electrical substation on Old Stone Highway in Amagansett, represents a mixed decision for East Hampton Town, which had sought to hold the utility provider to local zoning laws that would have required planning board review of the project.

In April, the California Court of Appeal overturned the trial court's ruling in Vergara v. California [i], in which a group of families had challenged the constitutionality of state laws governing teacher tenure [ii](California state law automatically grants tenure to teachers after sixteen months, provides extra due process protections to teachers over and above those available to other state workers, and requires schools to use seniority rather than competency in layoff decisiCourt of Appeal overturned the trial court's ruling in Vergara v. California [i], in which a group of families had challenged the constitutionality of state laws governing teacher tenure [ii](California state law automatically grants tenure to teachers after sixteen months, provides extra due process protections to teachers over and above those available to other state workers, and requires schools to use seniority rather than competency in layoff decisicourt's ruling in Vergara v. California [i], in which a group of families had challenged the constitutionality of state laws governing teacher tenure [ii](California state law automatically grants tenure to teachers after sixteen months, provides extra due process protections to teachers over and above those available to other state workers, and requires schools to use seniority rather than competency in layoff decisions.)

The case eventually made it to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which determined that the district would not be required to reimburse the family because it had met the standard of providing «some educational benefit,» which the 10th Circuit said was consistent with the standard established in 1982 in the Supreme Court's Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley (Rowley) decision.

For example, the federal appeals court in Chicago (7th Circuit) will still make its own determination on the appeals for the Cook County and Chicago ordinances and will not be required to follow the decisions on appeal in Phoenix and New York because they are in a different circuit.

Little did I know that, in the dank toilet of DC justice, they can, on the one hand, have two trial judges simultaneously ruling on the same case while, on the other hand, be entirely unaware of whether their own anti-SLAPP law is appealable and thus require a decision from the Appeals Court on whether the law is appealable before the appeal can be appealed.

Their lawsuit contends that the new decision to look at trophy hunting on case - by - case basis should be thrown out because it goes against a recent federal appeals court ruling requiring a public comment period on new rules.

At the Federal Court of Appeal, the essential elements of the Federal Court disposition with regard to required accessibility were confirmed even though some elements of the first instance decision were varied, especially to remove the declaration of infringement by the government and the disposition to the effect that the Federal Court was keeping jurisdiction to ensure the effect of its declaration (Canada (Attorney General) v. Jodhan, 2012 FCA 161 (CanLII)-RRB-.

On the 24th January 2017, the United Kingdom Supreme Court returned the Miller judgment on appeal confirming the High Court's decision of 3rd November 2016 that a further Act of Parliament was required in order to fulfil the necessary condition for withdrawal mandated by the European Union Treaties» withdrawal clause.

The Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed with Affinia that the facts of Sharma were sufficiently similar so as to require the motions court to «blindly» follow the decision (at paraCourt of Appeal disagreed with Affinia that the facts of Sharma were sufficiently similar so as to require the motions court to «blindly» follow the decision (at paracourt to «blindly» follow the decision (at para. 7).

However, the General Court accepted Gifi's argument that the Board failed to examine all the evidence it had produced, and the Board's judgment did not mention several of the designs cited: «In the present case, it is clear that, in the light of the Board of Appeal's assertion that it was required to re-examine the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety, followed by a one - by - one examination of the contested design in relation only to Designs D 1 to D 17, it is impossible to infer from the wording of the contested decision, or the context in which it appears, what is the implied reasoning justifying the failure to take into account Designs D 18 to D 22.»

The appellate court judges are required to presume the jury's decisions at trial were correct — as long as the record on appeal contains evidence to support the jury's verdict.

While there appeared to be a consensus for years that strict language was required to displace the common law without infringing on the ESA, Rose says a 2016 Ontario Court of Appeal decision dismissed an appeal from a motion judge's ruling upholding a termination clause — providing «the minimum required by the ESA» — that was linguistically sparse compared to earlier ruAppeal decision dismissed an appeal from a motion judge's ruling upholding a termination clause — providing «the minimum required by the ESA» — that was linguistically sparse compared to earlier ruappeal from a motion judge's ruling upholding a termination clause — providing «the minimum required by the ESA» — that was linguistically sparse compared to earlier rulings.

In a detailed and carefully reasoned decision, the Court ruled that the law requires the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to conduct its own independent assessment of the refugee claim.

The SCC overturned the Court of Appeal's confirmation of the trial decision, which stated that discrimination is an independant actionable wrong, which was required in order to obtain punitive damages.

Permission will now be required to appeal a family decision of a district judge (magistrates» courts) or lay beaks (FPAR 2).

While it comes from the Alberta court of appeal, the comments on the required standard of care in the CFL setting make this decision worthwhile reading for collaborative family law lawyers in other Canadian jurisdictions.

«Given some of the decisions that have come out of the Court of Appeal which have required pretty high standards for employers in terms of drafting employment agreement language, it was encouraging to see the court unanimously uphold the language that the parties negotiated in this case,» says Susan Crawford, of Crawford Chondon & Partners LLP who represented Money Mart in Kielb v. National Money Mart ComCourt of Appeal which have required pretty high standards for employers in terms of drafting employment agreement language, it was encouraging to see the court unanimously uphold the language that the parties negotiated in this case,» says Susan Crawford, of Crawford Chondon & Partners LLP who represented Money Mart in Kielb v. National Money Mart Comcourt unanimously uphold the language that the parties negotiated in this case,» says Susan Crawford, of Crawford Chondon & Partners LLP who represented Money Mart in Kielb v. National Money Mart Company.

Two questions arose: (i) whether s 204 contained an express requirement under which the county court was required by an enactment to make a decision applying the principles that were applied by the court on an application for judicial review, thus placing s 204 appeals within the public law category; and (ii) if not, whether there were any other reasons requiring the application of judicial review principles with the result that s 204 appeals fell within the post-LASPO 2012 civil legal aid regime.

The College appealed to the Court of Appeal on several grounds, including that the chambers judge failed to apply a reasonableness standard of review while improperly re-weighing the evidence, and erred in finding the decision unreasonable by improperly requiring the inquiry committee to weigh the respondent's version of events.

Our standard of review in appeals from the family court requires a de novo review of the family court's decision, and appellate courts are consistent in holding that procedural rules are subservient to the court's duty to zealously guard the rights of minors.

The Arizona Court of Appeals in this decision went so far as to say that the trial court was no longer required to even consider any of the other statutory factors normally required to be considered by the court once the Court made a finding of the existence of domestic violence or a significant history of domestic violCourt of Appeals in this decision went so far as to say that the trial court was no longer required to even consider any of the other statutory factors normally required to be considered by the court once the Court made a finding of the existence of domestic violence or a significant history of domestic violcourt was no longer required to even consider any of the other statutory factors normally required to be considered by the court once the Court made a finding of the existence of domestic violence or a significant history of domestic violcourt once the Court made a finding of the existence of domestic violence or a significant history of domestic violCourt made a finding of the existence of domestic violence or a significant history of domestic violence.

The Prime Minister asks this Court to reverse the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal requiring the Canadian government to request the United States to return Mr. Khadr from Guantanamo Bay to Canada.

This Court of Appeal decision assists appellants by not requiring leave for dismissal of juries in ICBC personal injury cases.

Earlier last month, the Connecticut Court of Appeals issued a written opinion in a Connecticut car accident case requiring the court to discuss the distinction between a judge's decision whether to admit certain evidence and the weight that evidence is afforded by the fact - finder once admiCourt of Appeals issued a written opinion in a Connecticut car accident case requiring the court to discuss the distinction between a judge's decision whether to admit certain evidence and the weight that evidence is afforded by the fact - finder once admicourt to discuss the distinction between a judge's decision whether to admit certain evidence and the weight that evidence is afforded by the fact - finder once admitted.

The Court affirmed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that the USPTO acted within its authority in promulgating rules requiring the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to...

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently upheld a decision requiring the employer to indemnify its former employee for costs and expenses the employee incurred during an internal investigation and dismissal proceedings for alleged fraudulent misconduct.

In that decision, the Court of Appeal found that the action raises serious allegations of fraud that could not be properly addressed in previous proceedings and that require a full hearing.

LORD JUSTICE JACOB: (GIVING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT): His lordship accepted that the special circumstances arising from the creation of the European patent system and the central importance given to decisions of the Boards of Appeal required the Court of Appeal to recognise a further exception to the rules laid down in YCOURT): His lordship accepted that the special circumstances arising from the creation of the European patent system and the central importance given to decisions of the Boards of Appeal required the Court of Appeal to recognise a further exception to the rules laid down in YCourt of Appeal to recognise a further exception to the rules laid down in Young.

Perhaps the cultural shift now required involves in part the confidence on the part of judges to use those tools to full effect in the knowledge that those decisions will get the backing of the appeal courts.

While one might presume the question of when reasons are required would have been well - settled since addressed by the Supreme Court in Baker, Manitoba's Court of Appeal has twice this year addressed that question, in both cases, in appeals from decisions of The... [more]

However, there will be cases in which the interests of justice require that an appellant be allowed to present a new defence on appeal,» says the court's decision.

We have represented people who felt that the court's decisions in their case required another look by an appeals court, and we have helped them with their appeals.

The Court held that Cuozzo could not challenge the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision to institute inter partes review and that the USPTO reasonably exercised its rulemaking authority in requiring the PTAB to construe claims under review using the USPTO's «broadest reasonable interpretation» standard.

Referring to previous Supreme Court of Canada and Court of Appeal decisions, the Court confirmed that EI benefits are not to be deducted from damages, because an employer should not be able to benefit from its wrongful termination of an employee which requires that employee to apply for and make use of EI benefit entitlements.

The Supreme Court of Canada has granted the union leave to appeal a decision of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal dealing with the scope of an employer's ability to require employees to submit to random alcohol teappeal a decision of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal dealing with the scope of an employer's ability to require employees to submit to random alcohol teAppeal dealing with the scope of an employer's ability to require employees to submit to random alcohol testing.

The first branch upon which leave may be granted requires the moving party to establish that there is a conflicting decision of another judge or court in Ontario or elsewhere, and that it is in the opinion of the judge hearing the motion «desirable that leave to appeal be granted».

EWS v RMT [2004]: Court of Appeal decision on trade dispute ballots confirming that the RMT was not required to serve separate notices on an employer operating industrial relations as a single unit but using two companies as their legal structure.

The Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court's landmark 2014 decisions in Cartier [1] to grant an injunction against internet service providers which required them to block access to certain websites which sell counterfeit goods.

Mike Fox describes a 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding Costco's dress code: The court upheld «Costco's dress policy against a challenge by an employee who argued her right to wear her eyebrow piercing was required by her religious beliefs as a member of the Church of Body Modification.&rCourt of Appeals decision upholding Costco's dress code: The court upheld «Costco's dress policy against a challenge by an employee who argued her right to wear her eyebrow piercing was required by her religious beliefs as a member of the Church of Body Modification.&rcourt upheld «Costco's dress policy against a challenge by an employee who argued her right to wear her eyebrow piercing was required by her religious beliefs as a member of the Church of Body Modification.»

This appeal considered the scope of enquiries required of a local authority when making decisions in homelessness cases to which the Equality Act 2010, s 149 applies, and the standard of review to be applied by courts when reviewing decisions of the local authority in such cases.

In the second case, SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, No. 16 - 969 (U.S. Apr. 24, 2018), the Court rejected the USPTO's interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 318 (a), which requires the Patent Trial and Appeal Board («PTAB») to issue a final written decision on the claims challenged by a petitioner at the conclusion of an IPR trial.

A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision (Stekar v. Wilcox [1]-RRB- reinforces what is required to prove well - established grounds for challenging a will: suspicious circumstance and testamentary capacity.