Sentences with phrase «applicable standard of»

Prior to the enactment of the Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988 adding handicapped to the protected classes, the Supreme Court addressed the applicable standard of review for alleged Equal Protection clause violations against mentally retarded people in the case City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center.

The Supreme Court found that the applicable standard of review was that the legislation was rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

The Court of Appeals of Washington addressed the applicable standard of review, stating that tying arrangements and price - fixing are traditionally deemed per se violations of antitrust law.

Since such presumptions are unusual under Bulgarian law, the courts will have to decide the applicable standard of proof, which defendants will have to meet to rebut that presumption.

The motion judge adopted, as the applicable standard of care in the circumstances, that stated by the Alberta Court of Appeal in Mahe v. Boulianne, 2010 ABCA 32, at paras. 11, 12 and 15.

It should be noted that a failure to warn clients and potential clients in the above - noted situations may not necessarily constitute a breach of the applicable standard of care.

The Victory Motors decision is also relevant with regard to the applicable standard of review to be applied by the reviewing court when judicially reviewing the Board's decision.

Such thinking may have been the reason why two recent statutory appeals against determinations of the SDT have proceeded on the basis of common ground between the parties that the applicable standard of proof was the criminal standard: see Afloabi v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2011] EWHC 2122 (Admin) and Law Society v Waddingham [2012] EWHC 1519 (Admin).

Civil liability for professional negligence and failing to meet the applicable standard of care for a person engaging in the kind of treatment conduct described is also possible.

Importance: The C.A. identified reasonableness as the applicable standard of review attracting deference to the decision of the chambers judge.

As the Superior Court decisions were decisions on motions involving questions of law, the applicable standard of review for the appeals was correctness.

She also considered whether «jurisdictional defect» includes not only true questions of jurisdiction but also excesses of jurisdiction such as errors of fact, law, or discretion offending the applicable standard of review.

Whether or not it does so depends on how the trier of fact, in the exercise of his or her own judgment, chooses to weigh the evidence: subject to the applicable standard of review, that task of weighing evidence rests with the trier of fact ̶ in this case, with the Tribunal.

The decision is important because the Ontario Court of Appeal adopted the applicable standard of care in these circumstances from an Alberta Court of Appeal decision: Mahe v. Boulianne, 2010 ABCA 32 (CanLII).

The applicable standard of review requires curial deference, absent a finding of fact or law that is patently unreasonable.

In Illinois, medical malpractice is considered a form of professional negligence where the physician or medical professional failed to conform to the applicable standard of care.

[15] This Court described the applicable standard of review in mobility cases in MacPhail v Karasek, 2006 ABCA 238 (CanLII) at paras 25 - 27, 409 AR 170:

The plaintiff must disclose the identity and qualifications of the expert witness who certified that the defendant deviated from the applicable standard of care and the deviation was the proximate cause of the injuries claimed.

Unless the jurisprudence has already settled the applicable standard of review (Dunsmuir, at para. 62), the reviewing court should begin by considering whether the issue involves the interpretation by an administrative body of its own statute or statutes closely connected to its function.

In a typical medical malpractice case, Tennessee law requires a plaintiff to establish and prove a physician breached the applicable standard of professional care.

Topics discussed include: strategies for identifying the required elements for a potential malpractice action; the evaluation of the defenses that might bar recovery or defeat a claim; establishing or refuting the applicable standard of care with expert testimony; identifying when a conflict of interest results in divided loyalties, when such a conflict may form the basis of a claim, and the defenses to such conflict of interest claims; and distinguishing malpractice liability from a violation of professional ethical standards and if or when such standards are relevant to litigating a malpractice claim.

The Court of Appeal likewise ruled the applicable standard of review was correctness, but did so on very different grounds, which was the subject of my post in Where Are We Going on Standard of Review in Alberta?.

Medical negligence claimants must offer expert testimony with respect to the applicable standard of care, the breach of the standard of care, and the causal link between the negligence and the harm sustained.

According to the plain wording of s. 44 (1), the circumstances that must be considered in determining the reasonably applicable standard of repair includes the character and location of the roadway.

The Judgment asserts that the applicable standard of proof that applies is the civil one pursuant to Re B [2013] UKSC 33.

It was alleged that the health care providers failed to offer a timely diagnosis of the patient's cancer, and therefore breached the applicable standard of care.

Additionally, medical malpractice claimants must have an expert witness who is equally if not more qualified than the defendant to testify to a breach in the applicable standard of care.

A statute or regulation may define the applicable standard of care in a specific situation, and a violation of that statute may constitute negligence per se.

The Court stated the applicable standard of review is a relevant consideration in determining whether there is a reasonable chance of success.

For these reasons, it is important to have an attorney research the applicable standard of care, licensing requirements, and other regulations in your area.

Most medical issues are not within the common knowledge of the plaintiff or a jury, so an expert's testimony can be critical in helping the jury understand the applicable standard of care, whether the defendant provider failed to meet that standard, causation and damages.

Expert evidence is typically required to establish the applicable standard of care and that the professional deviated from that standard.

Specifically, the plaintiff must show that the defendant's deviation from the applicable standard of care was the prevailing cause of the injuries.

Pre-suit procedures include getting an affidavit from a medical expert who practices in the same field as the potential defendant, indicating that the potential defendant's conduct fell below the applicable standard of care.

Under Canadian tort law, a plaintiff has to prove five elements in order to establish negligence: (1) that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care; (2) that the defendant breached the applicable standard of care; (3) that the plaintiff suffered damages; (4) that these damages were the result of the defendant's breach (causation); and (5) that the resulting damages are not too remote.

These laws may also provide for financial penalties for conduct that falls below the applicable standard of care or rises to the level of outright abuse.

Dunsmuir also confirmed that precedent is established on the applicable standard of review for a particular decision - maker in relation to a particular type of decision or question (Dunsmuir at para 62).

Justice Manderscheid decides three issues in his judicial review decision: (1) what is the applicable standard of review?

The identification of the applicable standard of review thus requires a good understanding of how to differentiate between questions of law, questions of fact, and all related iterations between and surrounding these extremes.

Despite this, it appears both ATB and the AUPE expended significant time and energy arguing over what the applicable standard of review would be in their case.

As further set out below, the automobile industry's letter to Scott Pruitt suggests an exclusive focus on regulatory standards as determinative of the industry's applicable standard of care (and potential liability for the breach thereof), which, under Canadian common law at least, would be misplaced.

The Court of Appeal unanimously overturns the chambers justice on this point, and rules the applicable standard of review to apply to the Minister's decision is reasonableness.

And reasonableness is the applicable standard of review here ̶ the questions of law at issue are of «a very technical nature» which the CITT will often be better equipped than a reviewing court to answer.

In a nutshell: the relevant jurisprudence concerning the applicable standard of review of intelligence sources and analysis was developed by the General Court in a series of judgments concerning the freezing of assets of the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran («PMOI») in connection with the EU's fight against terrorism.

The appellate court first recognized the applicable standard of review, that the evidence would be viewed in a light favorable to the prevailing party, all reasonable inferences in its favor, citing Congdon v. Congdon, 20 Va..

As a refresher, Dunsmuir held that certain presumptions will point to the applicable standard of review; the level of deference afforded to statutory administrative decision - makers.

Finally, what is the applicable standard of review?

In order to have a successful claim of medical malpractice, the plaintiff has to prove that the healthcare provider (s) failed to act reasonably (i.e., within the applicable standard of care) and that this failure to act reasonably caused cerebral palsy.

So the plaintiffs in this case need to either (a) show actual damages, or (b) convince the court under the applicable standard of proof that they will suffer damages and they are likely to prevail on the merits of the case, and possibly secure a bond for the losses to the defendants in the meantime.

Since television and radio programs, on the other hand, are open to everyone without limitation, it is necessary to maintain a more broadly applicable standard of public propriety than applies to the other forms of mass communication.