Sentences with phrase «appeals court judges gave»

Not exact matches

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling on Friday, saying the family had not persuaded the three - judge panel «that the individual prayers or other remarks to be given by students at graduation are, in fact, school - sponsored.»

Lawyer James Branden told the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that when Boyland was convicted in 2014 of overlapping schemes to take cash from undercover agents to help them with a carnival permit and a real estate project, the judge gave jurors too broad a definition of the type of promised acts that the Supreme Court says would be a crime.

In a decision later upheld in the first appeal, a state Supreme Court justice ruled that given the island's location, the judge's special status is reasonable.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan concluded, in light of the Supreme Court's narrower definition, that the jury instructions given by the judge in Mr. Silver's trial were erroneous and that a properly instructed jury might not have convicted him.

Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne argued in his lawsuit that it was premature for an appeals court to hear the case given that the lower court judge scheduled a full hearing on the matter for Tuesday.

Lazarus pointed to Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, as an example of a jurist who «is not ready to give EPA a lot of deference if they're taking language which was crafted at one time and trying to push it at the edges to deal with a problem of another time, like climate change.»

In three days of testimony, Mr. Souter, currently a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, gave little indication of how he would rule on particular school - related issues.

«Should the legislature attempt to comply with these broad directives, even if it were to be given time extensions, by enacting new legislation, then it would have made these broad changes based solely on the views of a single Superior Court judge, without review or consideration by higher judicial authority,» the appeal says.

However, the Court of Appeal, with Lady Justice Arden giving the judgment, rejected MGN's argument that the judge had made no finding, as required by CPR 36.17 (3), that it would be «unjust» for the normal consequences of failing to beat an offer to apply.

Two samples are given, that of Judge Frederick G. Hamley, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and that of Judge Ruggero J. Aldisert of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

First, the Court of Appeal reasoned that since the Courts of Justice Act gives the court discretion to vary the interest rate and period, the plaintiffs in tort actions involving motor vehicle accidents do not have a vested right in a particular rate of prejudgment interest until the trial judge determines the interest Court of Appeal reasoned that since the Courts of Justice Act gives the court discretion to vary the interest rate and period, the plaintiffs in tort actions involving motor vehicle accidents do not have a vested right in a particular rate of prejudgment interest until the trial judge determines the interest court discretion to vary the interest rate and period, the plaintiffs in tort actions involving motor vehicle accidents do not have a vested right in a particular rate of prejudgment interest until the trial judge determines the interest rate.

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 another Court of Appeal decision called Catsoudas v. Catsoudas, the appeal court was asked to review the trial judge's order — which was given without any articulated reasons — to the effect that the husband should pay $ 1,000 per month to the Court of Appeal decision called Catsoudas v. Catsoudas, the appeal court was asked to review the trial judge's order — which was given without any articulated reasons — to the effect that the husband should pay $ 1,000 per month to theAppeal decision called Catsoudas v. Catsoudas, the appeal court was asked to review the trial judge's order — which was given without any articulated reasons — to the effect that the husband should pay $ 1,000 per month to theappeal court was asked to review the trial judge's order — which was given without any articulated reasons — to the effect that the husband should pay $ 1,000 per month to the court was asked to review the trial judge's order — which was given without any articulated reasons — to the effect that the husband should pay $ 1,000 per month to the wife.

Appeals judges generally resist overruling trial court judgments, instead, preferring to give trial judges the benefit of any doubt.

Hi Sonja I represent myself in courts including Court of Appeal I wonder about the dress code to give an impression on the judge.

The very question posed for Judge Sumner sitting in Wandsworth County Court in Miss Sam (Sales) Ltd v River Island Clothing Co Ltd where he gave judgment on 17 February 1994 which is not being appealed.

Reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal and restoring the determination of the trial judge (upheld in the High Court on appeal) the Supreme Court concluded that the facts in the present case did give rise to an inference that the intentions of the parties (to own the property in equal beneficial shares, consistent with their legal ownership) did change when Mr Kernott acquired his own property independently of Ms Appeal and restoring the determination of the trial judge (upheld in the High Court on appeal) the Supreme Court concluded that the facts in the present case did give rise to an inference that the intentions of the parties (to own the property in equal beneficial shares, consistent with their legal ownership) did change when Mr Kernott acquired his own property independently of Ms appeal) the Supreme Court concluded that the facts in the present case did give rise to an inference that the intentions of the parties (to own the property in equal beneficial shares, consistent with their legal ownership) did change when Mr Kernott acquired his own property independently of Ms Jones.

In addition to the holidays, I argued at the Fifth Circuit; published two articles at The Huffington Post (here and here); produced a podcast episode on appellate practice for the ABA's Sound Advice series; gave a presentation to the Dallas Bar Association (about the post-election Supreme Court and Trump's list of possible nominees); participated in a panel discussion about e-briefs and legal writing at the annual meeting of the Council of Chief Judges of State Courts of Appeal (in North Carolina); was cited on SCOTUSblog and the Appellate Advocacy Blog (both here and here); and was quoted by Bloomberg (here, here, here, and here), CNN, and the Winnipeg Free Press.

The shipowner contended that the judge had failed to have regard to the shipowner's Art 6 rights, and thus the Court of Appeal was required to intervene, despite the requirement contained in AA 1996, s 68 (4) for the judge to give permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which had been reAppeal was required to intervene, despite the requirement contained in AA 1996, s 68 (4) for the judge to give permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which had been reappeal to the Court of Appeal, which had been reAppeal, which had been refused.

Hats off to the judges present and past (four retired judges) of the Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal who are giving up evenings in November to provide educational sessions for islanders on PEI's courts, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, public law, criminal law, civil law and family law.

Curiously, perhaps, given the small number of courts martial, there are well over thirty of these appeal judges.

Under normal circumstances independent legal advice, if properly given should be sufficient to rebut any presumption of undue influence, but that was not the case in Cowper - Smith v Morgan 2016 BCCA 200 where the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge in finding inter alia, that the independent legal advice provided was inadequate to rebut the presumption of undue influence.

The appeal was allowed and the court gave guidance on the inquiries that trial judges should make where a personal connection between a juror and witness has been identified.

The US government appealed against Judge Coleman's decision, but today it was upheld by the High Court, which gave the US authorities a deadline to assure the court that, if Giese was found guilty, «there will be no attempt to make him the subject of a civil commitment order&raCourt, which gave the US authorities a deadline to assure the court that, if Giese was found guilty, «there will be no attempt to make him the subject of a civil commitment order&racourt that, if Giese was found guilty, «there will be no attempt to make him the subject of a civil commitment order».

Instead, the appeal court defers to the trial judge's factual findings, on the baiss that the trial judge had the best opportunity to assess the credibility of various witnesses and the weight to be given to each piece of evidence.

Or is Oudin just an appeal court giving deference to the reasoning of the judge of first instance and nothing more?

The judge ruled in his favour and, on the secretary of state's appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the simple fact of a death or serious injury of a person in custody gave rise to an obligation on the state to conduct an enhanced investigation, by a person independent of those implicated in the appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the simple fact of a death or serious injury of a person in custody gave rise to an obligation on the state to conduct an enhanced investigation, by a person independent of those implicated in the Appeal held that the simple fact of a death or serious injury of a person in custody gave rise to an obligation on the state to conduct an enhanced investigation, by a person independent of those implicated in the facts.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in finding the plaintiff was in need, given the substantial equity in her house which was not being utilized for her benefit.

Colin responded by noting that the appeal court should «tread very cautiously with questions of evidential evaluation» (Sharpe v Adam [2006] EWCA Civ 449, [2006] All ER (D) 277 (Apr)-RRB- given the trial judge had made findings based on evidence.

Sharp LJ, giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal, expressed herself unimpressed by the judge's approach and reasoning.

Sir Henry Brooke, a key member of the Court of Appeal in handling CPR issues, said at the December conference that that was the right approach: «If this new practice, and the existence of the overriding objective, gives the procedural judge at first instance greater immunity from appeal or review, then I believe that it has been very well documented that this has been no bad Appeal in handling CPR issues, said at the December conference that that was the right approach: «If this new practice, and the existence of the overriding objective, gives the procedural judge at first instance greater immunity from appeal or review, then I believe that it has been very well documented that this has been no bad appeal or review, then I believe that it has been very well documented that this has been no bad thing.

Waller LJ: As to the law the judge had stated: «Following the guidance of the Court of Appeal in Mullin v Richards [1998] 1 WLR 1305 -LSB-[1998] 1 All ER 920], I am satisfied that the test is whether an ordinarily prudent and reasonable 13 - year - old schoolboy in each defendant's situation would have realised that his actions gave rise to a risk of injury.»

For example, if I search «court AND appeals OR judge,» Judicata gives me the message you see below.

A recent decision by a Nova Scotia provincial court judge to acquit a taxi cab driver of sexual assault charges has raised the «thorny issue» of capacity to give consent — and the Crown will appeal.

This is going to be a continuing debate before judges at first instance, with doubtless a future opportunity for the Court of Appeal to give further guidance.

In the Alberta Court of Appeal ruling reported as R v Wagar, 2015 ABCA 327 Justice Brian K. O'Ferrall, speaking for a unanimous court, made short shrift of Justice Camp's judgment, at p. 1: ``... [W] e are satisfied that the trial judge's comments throughout the proceedings and in his reasons gave rise to doubts about the trial judge's understanding of the law governing sexual assaults and in particular, the meaning of consent and restrictions on evidence of the complainant's sexual activity... We are also persuaded that sexual stereotypes and stereotypical myths, which have long since been discredited, may have found their way into the trial judge's judgment.&rCourt of Appeal ruling reported as R v Wagar, 2015 ABCA 327 Justice Brian K. O'Ferrall, speaking for a unanimous court, made short shrift of Justice Camp's judgment, at p. 1: ``... [W] e are satisfied that the trial judge's comments throughout the proceedings and in his reasons gave rise to doubts about the trial judge's understanding of the law governing sexual assaults and in particular, the meaning of consent and restrictions on evidence of the complainant's sexual activity... We are also persuaded that sexual stereotypes and stereotypical myths, which have long since been discredited, may have found their way into the trial judge's judgment.&rcourt, made short shrift of Justice Camp's judgment, at p. 1: ``... [W] e are satisfied that the trial judge's comments throughout the proceedings and in his reasons gave rise to doubts about the trial judge's understanding of the law governing sexual assaults and in particular, the meaning of consent and restrictions on evidence of the complainant's sexual activity... We are also persuaded that sexual stereotypes and stereotypical myths, which have long since been discredited, may have found their way into the trial judge's judgment.»

Washington asked Gidez whether, if the appeals court took his side, the court would be lowering the standard for a judge to give a change - of - appearance instruction.

Judges and magistrates use guidelines from the Court of Appeal and the Sentencing Council when deciding what sentences to give.

A death penalty opponent, Feingold said: «I found a person who actually thought about it deeply, who was troubled by innocent people being sentenced to death, and who gave particular concern to how those cases were handled as a Court of Appeals judge.»

In 2016, the Alberta Court of Appeal in Kohan v. Kohan gave at paragraph 38 of its decision a list of some of the things that judges should keep in mind when dealing with this issue (click on the following link to find it and scroll down)

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant's appeal, declining to give effect to the alleged errors in the Trial Judge's reAppeal dismissed the Appellant's appeal, declining to give effect to the alleged errors in the Trial Judge's reappeal, declining to give effect to the alleged errors in the Trial Judge's reasons.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the evidence given at trial did not support the trial judge's classification of the Plaintiff as being a «crumbling skull Plaintiff», and further ruled that the trial judge did not adequately account for a reduction of damages in this regard.

The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed this is the case even where a criminal trial judge gave reasons for acquittal that expressed an opinion that no wrongdoing had occurred, as opposed to simply concluding there was a reasonable doubt as to whether an offence was committed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Trial Judge's findings respecting the defendants» breaches of the Insurance Companies Act but allowed the appeal in part on the issue of the remedy to be given for the breaches Appeal upheld the Trial Judge's findings respecting the defendants» breaches of the Insurance Companies Act but allowed the appeal in part on the issue of the remedy to be given for the breaches appeal in part on the issue of the remedy to be given for the breaches found.

(2) Sections 109 (constitutional questions) and 123 (giving decisions), section 125 and subsection 126 (5)(language of proceedings) and sections 132 (judge sitting on appeal), 136 (prohibition against photography at court hearing) and 146 (where procedures not provided) also apply to proceedings under the Criminal Code (Canada), except in so far as they are inconsistent with that Act.

The majority found less cause to dissent from the trial judge's findings with respect to the assessment of damages, principally because both the trial judge and the majority in the Court of Appeal considered that there was no chance that thermal operations would be undertaken within the relevant timeframe given oil prices at that time.

Last year, the Kansas legislature adopted a similar process by statute for court of appeals judges, eliminating the nominating commission and giving the governor full discretion in choosing these judges, with senate sign - off.

Contrary to the Trial Judge's reasoning, which proceeded on the basis Boliden had given some assurances, the Court of Appeal found the only representation in this matter was an indication Boliden would be prepared to conditionally sell the houses to the appellants.

In 2007, he was appointed a Judicial Assistant to the Court of Appeal (Lady Justice Arden), which gave him an invaluable insight into the way judges decide cases and appellate work.

Chiasson J. referenced the fact that the trial judge had held that the employer's conduct did not constitute constructive dismissal and that the Court of Appeal must give deference to that finding of fact.