Sentences with phrase «appeals court judges questioned»

Not exact matches

7th US Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Amy Coney Barrett, a Notre Dame law professor, was questioned intensely about her Catholic faith as a result of past writings expressing her beliefs on whether Catholic judges should recuse themselves from death - penalty cases if they believed they would be unable to impartially uphold the law, writing that — in limited situations — judges should step back in cases that conflict with their personal conscience.

Nicola Sturgeon was speaking at First Ministers Questions after judges found in favour of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde which was appealing against a decision of the Court of Session in Edinburgh last year in the case of Mary Doogan and Connie Wood.

Chang Qiang Zhu's behavior began to suffer only after the immigration judge asked him specific questions, such as what form of persecution the Apostle Paul used against Christians and what year Paul converted to Christianity, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled.

To get the stay, he had to convince the three appeals judges who decided his case — Jose Cabranes, Richard Wesley and William Sessions — that his arguments raise a «substantial question» for the Supreme Court, and that there is «good cause» to hold off on a retrial.

Westchester County DA Janet DiFiore, Gov. Andrew Cuomo's pick for chief judge of the Court of Appeals, will have her nomination put to a hearing today at the state Capitol, where the Republican - led Senate Judiciary Committee will have the opportunity to question her and examine her credentials before making a recommendation to the full Senate.

The NY Post questions Westchester County DA Janet DiFiore's ability to be independent from Cuomo in the post of chief judge of the Court of Appeals, for which he has nominated her, and also expresses dismay that the governor has yet to appoint a Republican to that bench.

As former Court of Appeal judge Sir Stephen Sedley noted last year, he described «a statutory surveillance scheme shrouded in secrecy, part of a growing constitutional model that raises the question as to whether the tripartite separation of powers, legislature, judicial and executive still holds good»

MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota (CNN)- Perhaps laying the groundwork for an appeal to a higher court, Republican Norm Coleman's attorneys are beginning to publicly question the three - judge panel presiding over his post-election legal battle, saying Wednesday that the judges are creating a «real problem» by not reconsidering their ruling from Friday that put a damper on much of Coleman's case over rejected absentee ballots.

If, as appears to be the case, the New Rochelle Police Department hushed up Latimer's car crash to shield her from unwanted attention on her relationship with Latimer you start to raise questions about ethical behavior by a sitting judge in New York State and conflicts of interest because one of three ways a Judge can be removed from the bench is to be impeached by a majority vote of the assembly then removed by a two - thirds vote a special court made up of judges of the court of appjudge in New York State and conflicts of interest because one of three ways a Judge can be removed from the bench is to be impeached by a majority vote of the assembly then removed by a two - thirds vote a special court made up of judges of the court of appJudge can be removed from the bench is to be impeached by a majority vote of the assembly then removed by a two - thirds vote a special court made up of judges of the court of appeals.

-LSB-...] FEA faced even more probing questions last week before a three - judge panel at the First District Court of Appeal.

Last week, the appeal court head another case where the Crown's line of questioning was deemed improper both by the trial judge and the appeal court, but a retrial wasn't ordered in that case.

The Federal Court of Appeal's Hospira decision therefore raises questions about the role and jurisdiction of prothonotaries in the Federal Court as well as these appeal routes with the Federal Court as the court equalizes the standard of reviews between prothonotaries and juCourt of Appeal's Hospira decision therefore raises questions about the role and jurisdiction of prothonotaries in the Federal Court as well as these appeal routes with the Federal Court as the court equalizes the standard of reviews between prothonotaries and jAppeal's Hospira decision therefore raises questions about the role and jurisdiction of prothonotaries in the Federal Court as well as these appeal routes with the Federal Court as the court equalizes the standard of reviews between prothonotaries and juCourt as well as these appeal routes with the Federal Court as the court equalizes the standard of reviews between prothonotaries and jappeal routes with the Federal Court as the court equalizes the standard of reviews between prothonotaries and juCourt as the court equalizes the standard of reviews between prothonotaries and jucourt equalizes the standard of reviews between prothonotaries and judges.

In John, the trial judge asked the jury to disregard that line of questioning, a measure deemed sufficient by the court of appeal to erase the effect of the Crown's improper questioning.

At times, people have questioned whether in at least some cases, parties should be able to appeal prothonotary decisions directly to the Federal Court of Appeal, rather than first to a single judge of the Federal appeal prothonotary decisions directly to the Federal Court of Appeal, rather than first to a single judge of the Federal Appeal, rather than first to a single judge of the Federal Court.

if the reviewing judge chose the correct standard, the Court of Appeal's task is to determine whether or not he / she applied the standard properly (which, for the Court of Appeal, is a question of law, reviewable on the standard of correctness).

Since, for the Court of Appeal, the Chambers Judge chose the appropriate standard of review, the only remaining question was whether or not the standard was applied correctly.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's only errors were in the wording of the question to the jury regarding causation, and that the trial judge stated he did not have jurisdiction to poll the jury when he did.

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.

The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed an appeal from the Crown questioning a judge's decision not to impose a fine on a fraudster who bilked Canada Customs of more than $ 4.7 million because she believed he wouldn't pay it.

The Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial judge on the question of the Charter argument only to the extent that some of the words in the operative provisions were overbroad.

The question of whether the implementation of the planning permissions had altered the nature or character of the locality was one of fact and degree and there was nothing which justified the Court of Appeal interfering with the judge's finding on this point.

As regards rectification, the Court of Appeal held that the judge had been wrong on the facts to hold that there was convincing proof that the relevant common intention continued up to the grant of the lease in question, and so allowed the appeal on this Appeal held that the judge had been wrong on the facts to hold that there was convincing proof that the relevant common intention continued up to the grant of the lease in question, and so allowed the appeal on this appeal on this point.

Recently, I wrote about an Ontario Court of Appeal called Stevens v. Stevens that dealt with a number of issues, among them the question of whether the trial judge's opinion of the husband had been tainted by the fact that the husband had had an extra-marital affair.

One of the judges of the Court of Appeals, in upholding the law, stated that, in his opinion, the regulation in question could not be sustained unless they were able to say, from common knowledge, that working in a bakery and candy factory was an unhealthy employment.

No less than 12 judges were assembled in the Court of Appeal (five) and the Supreme Court (seven) to deal with the thorny questions raised in R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14.

The trial judge at the Provincial Court of Alberta answered this question in the affirmative (2008 ABPC 232), but this decision was reversed by the Court of Queen's Bench (2009 ABQB 745), and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by the appellants (2014 ABCAppeal dismissed the appeal by the appellants (2014 ABCappeal by the appellants (2014 ABCA 71).

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.

This week on the legal - affairs podcast Lawyer2Lawyer, we put those questions to two distinguished members of the federal judiciary, Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf of the District of Nebraska, formerly author of the blog Hercules and the Umpire.

The Court of Appeal in Trudel suggested similarly, stating that [my translation] «the judge seized with a motion pleading immunity on the part of the foreign State is required to decide the question, absent particular circumstances that do not apply here.»

«[4] In our view, the answer to this question is no: a current judge of the Federal Court of Appeal is not eligible for appointment under s. 6 as a person who may be appointed «from among the advocates of that Province».

In this case, the Court of Appeal found it significant that the Motion Judge did not view his change to the question as a «distinction without a difference» and that ``... the parties ought to have been able to address» this distinctive formulation.

The Federal Court of Appeal held that the proper question was therefore whether the Memo was privileged under the laws of those provinces, rather than what the law should be based on the policy concerns of the Federal Court judge.

In relation to the Crown's assertions that the trial judge failed to consider all the evidence, misapprehended the evidence, and failed to correctly assess the elements in one of the particulars, the Court of Appeal held that the Crown again failed to identify a question of law alone.

«Judges Press C.I.A. Lawyer Over Withheld Documents»: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, «A federal appeals court panel in Manhattan questioned a lawyer for the federal government yesterday as to whether the Central Intelligence Agency had a legitimate national security interest in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of documents authorizing it to detain and interrogate terrorism suspects overseas.»

The important question of how much latitude judges have in Ontario to avoid trials by granting summary judgment under Rule 20 is scheduled to come before the Supreme Court of Canada in March in two appeals involving an alleged investor scam.

With respect to the ultra vires question, the Court of Appeal deferred to the Trial Judge's conclusions as set out in his reasons.

Section 187 of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act provides for an appeal from a decision of the Commission on a question of law or jurisdiction — but only with leave obtained from a judge of the Court of Aappeal from a decision of the Commission on a question of law or jurisdiction — but only with leave obtained from a judge of the Court of AppealAppeal.

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that «Appeals Court Questions Grounds for Canceling Policy on «Dreamers»; Trump's effort to end DACA program reviewed for first time by appellate judges.»

The Court of Appeal (a single judge) did not grant the permission to appeal; finds the Applicants «have not identified a pure question of law on which permission to appeal should be granted.&Appeal (a single judge) did not grant the permission to appeal; finds the Applicants «have not identified a pure question of law on which permission to appeal should be granted.&appeal; finds the Applicants «have not identified a pure question of law on which permission to appeal should be granted.&appeal should be granted.»

Attorneys admitted by the Court of Appeals (and federal judges and clerks — see the Answer to the Question «Who is eligible to apply...» below) may separately apply for admission to the Bar Association.

(3) Sections 109 (constitutional questions), 125, 126 (language of proceedings), 132 (judge sitting on appeal), 136 (prohibition against photography at court hearings), 144 (arrest and committal warrants enforceable by police) and 146 (where procedures not provided) also apply to proceedings under the Provincial Offences Act and, for the purpose, a reference in one of those sections to a judge includes a justice of the peace presiding in the Ontario Court of Juscourt hearings), 144 (arrest and committal warrants enforceable by police) and 146 (where procedures not provided) also apply to proceedings under the Provincial Offences Act and, for the purpose, a reference in one of those sections to a judge includes a justice of the peace presiding in the Ontario Court of JusCourt of Justice.

(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 District of Columbia Court of Appeals, en banc., heard the question, Plaintiffs» appeal, and adopted the Rule 702 standards unanimously, with Judge Easterly providing a concurring opinion.

Third Circuit grants plaintiffs» petition for permission to appeal in case challenging the lawfulness of GSK's diversity re-removals of state court Paxil personal injury cases more than one year after the cases were filed in state court: This afternoon, a three - judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit entered an order granting my clients» petition for permission to appeal in a case presenting the question «Whether a defendant may remove a case a second time based on diversity jurisdiction more than one year after the commencement of the case?&rcourt Paxil personal injury cases more than one year after the cases were filed in state court: This afternoon, a three - judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit entered an order granting my clients» petition for permission to appeal in a case presenting the question «Whether a defendant may remove a case a second time based on diversity jurisdiction more than one year after the commencement of the case?&rcourt: This afternoon, a three - judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit entered an order granting my clients» petition for permission to appeal in a case presenting the question «Whether a defendant may remove a case a second time based on diversity jurisdiction more than one year after the commencement of the case?&rCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit entered an order granting my clients» petition for permission to appeal in a case presenting the question «Whether a defendant may remove a case a second time based on diversity jurisdiction more than one year after the commencement of the case?»

The majority in the Supreme Court supported a pragmatic, purposive approach to the interpretation of the CDE Definition, but the divided opinion of the Judges not only in the Supreme Court, but also at first instance and in the Court of Appeal, highlights how difficult questions of contractual interpretation can be.

The Court of Appeal disagreed and found that the motions judge went too far by requiring the person in question to have «dominion and control» similar to the owner:

The Court of Appeal, after reviewing the transcript, concluded that «[i] t [did] not appear that the judge's questions were genuinely directed at obtaining information; rather the impression left by the transcript is that the judge was, in effect, taunting counsel.»

Contrary to the submission of the Appellant, the Court of Appeal found the Trial Judge was entitled to accept witness evidence (including from those not trained as veterinarians); it was ``... unreasonable to suggest that a device that is designed to deliver a meaningful shock to an animal many times larger than the dogs in question would not cause unnecessary pain or suffering...» (See para. 16).

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals judge's actions called into question Dallas Morning News March 8, 2009

«Justices signal dismay at Texas; Decision to hear capital cases may suggest high court questions handling»: The Dallas Morning News today contains an article that begins, «The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear three Texas death penalty cases in its new term, a move that veteran court watchers called the latest signal of the court's increasing frustration with how condemned inmates» appeals are handled by Texas» highest criminal judges and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.&rcourt questions handling»: The Dallas Morning News today contains an article that begins, «The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear three Texas death penalty cases in its new term, a move that veteran court watchers called the latest signal of the court's increasing frustration with how condemned inmates» appeals are handled by Texas» highest criminal judges and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.&rCourt has agreed to hear three Texas death penalty cases in its new term, a move that veteran court watchers called the latest signal of the court's increasing frustration with how condemned inmates» appeals are handled by Texas» highest criminal judges and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.&rcourt watchers called the latest signal of the court's increasing frustration with how condemned inmates» appeals are handled by Texas» highest criminal judges and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.&rcourt's increasing frustration with how condemned inmates» appeals are handled by Texas» highest criminal judges and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.appeals are handled by Texas» highest criminal judges and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.&rCourt of Appeals.Appeals.»