Sentences with phrase «appellate court decision here»

Read the Saskatchewan appellate court decision here.

Read the Quebec appellate court decision here.

Not exact matches

Here's the decision by four appellate court judges — two Democrats and two Republicans — dismissing Sen. Craig Johnson's appeal of a Dec. 4 ruling of State Supreme Court Justice Ira Warshawsky that handed the 7th SD race to Republican Jack Marcourt judges — two Democrats and two Republicans — dismissing Sen. Craig Johnson's appeal of a Dec. 4 ruling of State Supreme Court Justice Ira Warshawsky that handed the 7th SD race to Republican Jack MarCourt Justice Ira Warshawsky that handed the 7th SD race to Republican Jack Martins.

Here, client at first suffered a default judgment of $ 86,676.88 in favor of former attorney, but client obtained relief from the default judgment from the appellate court in an earlier decision.

The decision to allow the appellate court's Chau (Starbuck's tip) decision to stand (blog here and here).

Here is what that Florida appellate court wrote in the decision of Slaats v. Sandy Lane Residential, LLC:

According to yesterday's news (see here for an article from the National Post), the government of New Brunswick will be asking the Supreme Court of Canada to look into the status of its language laws as it appeals the decision of its appellate court upholding the decision of a provincial judge who excluded breath - sample evidence of a suspected impaired driver pursuant to s. 24 (2) of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms because his language rights had been violated (see R. v. Losier, 2011 NBCA 102 (CanLII)-Court of Canada to look into the status of its language laws as it appeals the decision of its appellate court upholding the decision of a provincial judge who excluded breath - sample evidence of a suspected impaired driver pursuant to s. 24 (2) of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms because his language rights had been violated (see R. v. Losier, 2011 NBCA 102 (CanLII)-court upholding the decision of a provincial judge who excluded breath - sample evidence of a suspected impaired driver pursuant to s. 24 (2) of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms because his language rights had been violated (see R. v. Losier, 2011 NBCA 102 (CanLII)-RRB-.

As the first published California appellate court decision to apply Tobacco II, the Opinion in Morgan, et al. v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (September 23, 2009)(covered on this blog here) is receiving quite a bit of attention.

A recent decision of an American appellate court provides a vivid illustration of the complexity of the issues surrounding the courts» treatment of scientific information that I have been blogging about here.

Of course «justice» here in the Mian case is balancing on a fine line as justice must not only be seen to be done in the scope of the appellate review but justice must also be done in the very decision the appellate court makes.

We discussed the lower court decision here, and the appellate decision is mostly consistent.

(1) extending negligent misrepresentation beyond «business transactions» to product liability, unprecedented in Texas; (2) ignoring multiple US Supreme Court decisions that express and implied preemption operate independently (as discussed here) to dismiss implied preemption with nothing more than a cite to the Medtronic v. Lohr express preemption decision; (3) inventing some sort of state - law tort to second - guess the defendant following one FDA marketing approach (§ 510k clearance) over another (pre-market approval), unprecedented anywhere; (4) holding that the learned intermediary rule does not apply whenever a defendant «compensates» or «incentivizes» physicians to use its products, absent any Texas state or appellate authority; (5) imposing strict liability on an entity not in the product's chain of sale, contrary to Texas statute (§ 82.001 (2)-RRB-; (6) creating a claim for «tortious interference» with the physician - patient relationship, again utterly unprecedented; (7) creating «vicarious» breach of fiduciary duty for engaging doctors to serve as expert witnesses in mass tort litigation also involving their patients, ditto; and (8) construing a consulting agreement with a physician as «commercial bribery» to avoid the Texas cap on punitive damages, jaw - droppingly unprecedented.

Click here to read a summary of the appellate court's decision in this case.