Not exact matches
In Tuesday's
ruling, a three -
judge appellate panel rejected Pauley's narrow definition of «repeat infringer» as only covering users who upload infringing content, rather than ones who downloaded songs for personal entertainment.
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.
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 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 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.
Judge Leslie Stein, who previously served in the
appellate division in Albany, did not participate in the
ruling, but all six remaining
judges agreed.
A federal district
judge can order increases in property taxes, but not income taxes, to fund costly school - desegregation remedies in Kansas City, Mo., an
appellate panel has
ruled.
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 courts.
The
appellate judges have now tossed out anything relating to Mann's original fraudulent complaint, including
Judge Combs - Greene's unbelievably careless
ruling in which the obtuse jurist managed to confuse the defendants, and her subsequent
ruling in which she chose to double - down on her own stupidity.
Yet, as we all know, your average case law update spends maybe two paragraphs describing the impact of the
ruling and close to 10 or 12 paragraphs setting out the background facts, the arguments by counsel, the findings of the trial
judge (with quotes) and the conclusions of any
appellate decisions (also with quotes).
The Economist said it read more like «novice high - school debate speech than a
ruling by a federal
appellate judge.»
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.
Ultimately, the objective is to present an argument based on the law that will persuade the
appellate judges to hear the appeal and issue a favorable
ruling.
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.&r
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.&r
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.»
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.
The 2003 version of Family Proceedings
Rules 1991, r 8.1 (3) requires that the
judge, as
appellate tribunal, «be limited to a review of the decision or order of the district
judge», save where the «
judge considers that... it would be in the interests of justice to hold a rehearing» — as happened, for example in R v R (Lump Sum Repayments)[2003] EWHC 3197 (Fam), [2004] 1 FLR 928, where Mr Justice Wilson (as he then was) decided that the evidence before the district
judge needed to be revisited by him.
The
appellate panel, which consisted of two
judges, affirmed a previous
ruling that rendered an award of benefits to Diaz.
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
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.
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.
The bulk of the
ruling, with a majority
ruling by
Judge Reinhardt and a dissent by
Judge Kozinski, concerns the intricacies of
appellate and habeas procedure.
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 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.»
A Shocking
Ruling An appellate judge in Texas issued a ruling so extreme and extraordinary that it may cost her that seat she holds on the
Ruling An
appellate judge in Texas issued a
ruling so extreme and extraordinary that it may cost her that seat she holds on the
ruling so extreme and extraordinary that it may cost her that seat she holds on the bench.
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.
One study found that women federal
appellate judges are significantly more likely than men to
rule in favor a party alleging discrimination.
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.
There should be a great burden on any
appellate judge to justify the application of the Harmless Error
rule after having found that an error was committed and improper evidence has been admitted.
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.
And as a believer in the justice embedded in the
appellate process, Mark has time and time again persuaded Federal Circuit
judges to
rule for his clients.
JuraLaw provides federal, state and local court
rule sets across the nation as well as
appellate, family, probate,
judges and agency
rules.
The common law consists of legal
rules created by
judges in opinions resolving
appellate cases through a chain of case law precedents that trace back to the common law (and equity principles) of English law prior to the American Revolution.
I didn't check through the other instances of Kusk cites at the
appellate level to see if any of them involve this sort of issue or at the trial level to see if they're reports of trial
judge's
ruling on the (in) admissibility of this type of question.
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 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.