Sentences with phrase «appellate court judges ruled»

A panel of Illinois appellate court judges ruled that an Ottawa newspaper published by Ottawa Publishing must release the names of commentators on its Web site alleged to have made defamatory statements, the Chicago Tribune reported.

In a 1984 fight between Lake in the Hills and Crystal Lake over the property that is now the Lake in the Hills Airport, an appellate court judge ruled that the first valid eminent domain nullified subsequent condemnation efforts.

Not exact matches

In Thursday's ruling, the appellate court ruled the judge's erroneous instruction to the jury at Silver's trial «was not harmless because 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 law for the verdict to stand.»

The appellate judges in Silver's case found that, under the Supreme Court's ruling, the instructions given to the jury at Silver's trial were improper and prejudicial.

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.

Silver was convicted of using his political influence for political favors; the conviction was tossed last summer, when appellate judges in the 2nd Circuit ruled that the definition of «official acts» had been changed by a previous Supreme Court decision in the public corruption case of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.

A five - judge panel from the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, upheld the appellate ruling last week, setting the stage for Friday's cCourt of Appeals, the state's highest court, upheld the appellate ruling last week, setting the stage for Friday's ccourt, upheld the appellate ruling last week, setting the stage for Friday's count.

The five - judge appellate court panel ruled that the city's right to appeal Murphy's intermediate order ended when Murphy issued his final order.

Since then, a high - profile court battle ensued, resulting in a Superior Court judge finding that the program violates the state's constitutional mandate to use public funds only for public schools — but thanks to a Court of Appeals ruling last month, the state must disburse school vouchers that have already been awarded while the case winds its way through the state appellate cocourt battle ensued, resulting in a Superior Court judge finding that the program violates the state's constitutional mandate to use public funds only for public schools — but thanks to a Court of Appeals ruling last month, the state must disburse school vouchers that have already been awarded while the case winds its way through the state appellate coCourt judge finding that the program violates the state's constitutional mandate to use public funds only for public schools — but thanks to a Court of Appeals ruling last month, the state must disburse school vouchers that have already been awarded while the case winds its way through the state appellate coCourt of Appeals ruling last month, the state must disburse school vouchers that have already been awarded while the case winds its way through the state appellate courts.

Rather, it merely proves that the different regional federal appellate courts follow somewhat different rules governing the order in which the judges on the three - judge panel that decided the case are listed on an opinion.

The appellate court affirmed the appeal of the postjudgment appeals ruling, finding the trial judge properly found the «gist» of the complaint / cross-claims were to enforce provisions of the governing documents on equitable theories such that plaintiff prevailed and was entitled to fees under Civil Code section 1354 (c).

To defend the judge's ruling, the opposing lawyer actually submitted documents that were not part of the trial court's record, a serious violation of appellate court rules.

The ruling that makes clear that an appellate court can reverse a guidelines sentence, even when it is followed by the trial judge, implies far more latitude to deviate from the guidelines when the trial judge disagrees with the way the guidelines work in a particular case.

When you show a judge that the legislature has weighed in on your issue, or an appellate court has ruled your way in a similar case, then you're probably going to win the day.

Only three days after Judge Kaplan's spectacular ruling in the Chevron / Ecuador case, notes Paul Barrett at Business Week, «a state appellate court in California upheld a trial judge's finding that what had been billed as a watershed liability verdict against Dole Food over pesticide use in Nicaragua was actually the product of a corrupt conspiracy by plaintiffs» lawyers.&rJudge Kaplan's spectacular ruling in the Chevron / Ecuador case, notes Paul Barrett at Business Week, «a state appellate court in California upheld a trial judge's finding that what had been billed as a watershed liability verdict against Dole Food over pesticide use in Nicaragua was actually the product of a corrupt conspiracy by plaintiffs» lawyers.&rjudge's finding that what had been billed as a watershed liability verdict against Dole Food over pesticide use in Nicaragua was actually the product of a corrupt conspiracy by plaintiffs» lawyers.»

This means that an appeal will only be successful if the appellate court believes that the trial court judge's ruling was either arbitrary or absurd.

When the appellate court received the Special Action Petition, the Court of Appeals ordered both parties to file simultaneous briefs addressing whether the trial judge had jurisdiction to issue its order, since it addressed the same subject on which the superior court had previously rcourt received the Special Action Petition, the Court of Appeals ordered both parties to file simultaneous briefs addressing whether the trial judge had jurisdiction to issue its order, since it addressed the same subject on which the superior court had previously rCourt of Appeals ordered both parties to file simultaneous briefs addressing whether the trial judge had jurisdiction to issue its order, since it addressed the same subject on which the superior court had previously rcourt had previously ruled.

So under the current court rules, they're doing themselves somewhat of a disservice by limiting the length of their briefs, but they decided that they'd rather have their briefs readable to the appellate judges who are reading them on their iPads.

The group advises judges on changes in federal appellate court rules.

Bad news for the disgruntled divorce client in the case reported on here Nov. 17: a state appellate court has ordered San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay to reconsider his ruling allowing the client to claim emotional distress damages over the attorney's alleged mishandling of his divorce (which the attorney dencourt has ordered San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay to reconsider his ruling allowing the client to claim emotional distress damages over the attorney's alleged mishandling of his divorce (which the attorney denCourt Judge Ronald Quidachay to reconsider his ruling allowing the client to claim emotional distress damages over the attorney's alleged mishandling of his divorce (which the attorney denies).

That's what a Florida appellate court ruled last week, upholding a defendant's motion to disqualify a trial judge based on the judge's Facebook friendship with the prosecutor assigned to the case.

The appellate court sent the case of Carey v. Wolnitzek back to U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell to determine the meaning of the word «issue» in the Kentucky Supreme Court rule that prohibits judicial candidates from saying how they will rule on «issues.&rcourt sent the case of Carey v. Wolnitzek back to U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell to determine the meaning of the word «issue» in the Kentucky Supreme Court rule that prohibits judicial candidates from saying how they will rule on «issues.&rCourt rule that prohibits judicial candidates from saying how they will rule on «issues.»

Canadian appellate courts usually deal with harmless error (usually an evidentiary ruling by a trial judge that, while mistaken, does not meet the standard of reversible error on appeal, or to warrant a new trial) in the context of criminal trials.

The Italian constitutional Court has upheld national rules which had been judged by the ECHR as contrary to the Convention, arguing that such rules nevertheless protected a different constitutional principle of the national constitution and the convention could not modify the constitution, beng it a lower rank act - so from a theoretical point of view the CJEU adopts the same approach: the ultimate decision on whether a EU act is in compliance with EU law must be taken within EU only (to make a parallel, think of the CJEU approach for WTO decisions: despite an action being contrary to WTO as decided by the appellate body, nonetheless individuals can use such illegality as a ground to void the action within the EU system)

(1) is not required to comply with Canons 4A (4), 4A (5), 4D (2), 4E, 4F, or 4H (3); (2) except as provided in the Conflict - of - Interest Rules for Part - time Magistrate Judges, should not practice law in the court on which the judge serves or in any court subject to that court's appellate jurisdiction, or act as a lawyer in a proceeding in which the judge has served as a judge or in any related proceeding.

In turn, appellate courts since Kumho have focused on whether the trial judge abused his discretion in determining admission and, in some cases, have determined whether, without focusing on the Daubert factors, the expert testimony satisfied other evidentiary rules, such as whether there was an adequate factual foundation for the expert's testimony.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to the foregoing enabling act and to the matters recited in the foregoing preface, that the annexed rules be and the same hereby are adopted for the regulation of original and appellate civil practice and procedure in judicial proceedings in the district courts of the State of Nevada, and the forms annexed thereto approved; that the same shall be effective on January 1, 1953; that publication thereof be made by the mailing of a printed copy by the clerk of this court to each member of the State Bar of Nevada according to the clerk's official list of membership of such Bar (which will include all district judges and district attorneys), and that the certificate of the clerk of this court as to such mailing, not less than sixty days prior to January 1, 1953, shall be conclusive evidence of the adoption and publication of said rules in accordance with the provisions of said enabling act.

JuraLaw provides federal, state and local court rule sets across the nation as well as appellate, family, probate, judges and agency rules.

As reported by Law360, a California state judge recently ruled that Latham & Watkins tentatively was entitled to an award of attorney's fees to the tune of about $ 1.6 million as damages in a malicious prosecution case against litigants Messrs. Parrish and Fitzgibbons, in a case which produced quite a bit of appellate activity (including a published California Supreme Court decision).

After the overturning of U.S. District Judge William Alsup's ruling that APIs can't be copyrighted, Google claimed that what they had done should be considered «fair use» and still legal under the ruling of the appellate court.

That motion judge's ruling was reversed by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey (our intermediate appellate court), ruling that giving such a presumption in favor of the custodial parent is improper in cases where the children's surname was chosen by the parties at the birth of each child and especially in cases where the parents share joint legal cusCourt of New Jersey (our intermediate appellate court), ruling that giving such a presumption in favor of the custodial parent is improper in cases where the children's surname was chosen by the parties at the birth of each child and especially in cases where the parents share joint legal cuscourt), ruling that giving such a presumption in favor of the custodial parent is improper in cases where the children's surname was chosen by the parties at the birth of each child and especially in cases where the parents share joint legal custody.

The appellate court concluded that the trial judge had erred in disregarding key evidence of conspiracy and in ruling that RE / MAX had no case.