Sentences with phrase «argument in court now»

Not exact matches

Now the entertainment conglomerates that own U.S. television networks are waging a legal fight, culminating in Tuesday's Supreme Court argument against a startup business that uses Internet - based technology to give subscribers the ability to watch programs anywhere they can take portable devices.

But, in the courts and other public forums, the ACLU now has impressive competition, while the political sea change of November 1994 has created a circumstance much more sympathetic to the public expression of arguments informed by religious tradition.

Now, after defending Prop 8 at trial in U.S. district court, and in the Ninth Circuit, and in arguments to the Supreme Court, the proponents of the amendment have been told they lack standing to appeal the adverse trial rucourt, and in the Ninth Circuit, and in arguments to the Supreme Court, the proponents of the amendment have been told they lack standing to appeal the adverse trial ruCourt, the proponents of the amendment have been told they lack standing to appeal the adverse trial ruling.

The lefty duo's final argument: Now that Cuomo has succeeded in leading the nation on gun control, he could do so again on this issue, being the first to act in a significant way to counter the power of big money in politics since the US Supreme Court's January 2010 Citizens United decision.

In spite of the concerted argument of both the looter Government and unconstitutional lootee (now styled judgment debtor), the Supreme Court has granted my application to examine the lootee / unconstitutional judgment debtor on 24th November 2016.

Argument over Thorp, the reprocessing plant at Sellafield in Cumbria, is expected to move from Whitehall to the courts now that John Gummer, Britain's environment secretary, has given his blessing for the plant to open.

Ivins's death late last month, ruled a suicide, means those arguments will not now be examined in a court of law.

Now, this cultural conflict is coming to a head in the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear oral arguments April 26 in a...

The argument in the courts — playing out now in New Jersey and likely soon in New York — is simple: The state Constitution protects us from taking any share of the pain of the fiscal calamity.

But no court has accepted this argument because, now that public schools no longer have a Protestant character, the Blaine Amendments no longer function in a way that favors or disfavors particular religious groups.

Now, these arguments will come before the highest court in the land, setting up a showdown in the national spotlight between traditional generators and demand response providers.

Considering that the same district court allowed Apple to leverage a couple of recent Supreme Court opinions concerning fee - shifting in connection with its pursuit of a recovery of attorneys» fees from Samsung, it would seem just fair for Samsung to be allowed to make an Alice argument now, just in time before Judge Lucy Koh will decide on the parties» motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) following the recent $ 119 million jury verdict (which was disappointing enough for Apple to request a retrcourt allowed Apple to leverage a couple of recent Supreme Court opinions concerning fee - shifting in connection with its pursuit of a recovery of attorneys» fees from Samsung, it would seem just fair for Samsung to be allowed to make an Alice argument now, just in time before Judge Lucy Koh will decide on the parties» motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) following the recent $ 119 million jury verdict (which was disappointing enough for Apple to request a retrCourt opinions concerning fee - shifting in connection with its pursuit of a recovery of attorneys» fees from Samsung, it would seem just fair for Samsung to be allowed to make an Alice argument now, just in time before Judge Lucy Koh will decide on the parties» motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) following the recent $ 119 million jury verdict (which was disappointing enough for Apple to request a retrial).

The Supreme Court of California, in Re Marriage Cases (15 May 2008, S147999), actually stresses the societal importance of the family, particularly in the nurture of children, but considers this an argument in favour of equal marriage, given that Californian law now fully recognises the childraising capacity of gay couples.

In the tradition of Blawg Review, Wallace offers up blog links and short commentaries on many of the hot issues now being discussed in the blogosphere, including links to Mark Bennett on the shooting of Trayvon Martin, Tom Goldstein on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent arguments over the Affordable Care Act, the latest April Fools prank by «hoaxing mastermind» (and stellar disclaimer writer) Eric Turkewitz, and much morIn the tradition of Blawg Review, Wallace offers up blog links and short commentaries on many of the hot issues now being discussed in the blogosphere, including links to Mark Bennett on the shooting of Trayvon Martin, Tom Goldstein on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent arguments over the Affordable Care Act, the latest April Fools prank by «hoaxing mastermind» (and stellar disclaimer writer) Eric Turkewitz, and much morin the blogosphere, including links to Mark Bennett on the shooting of Trayvon Martin, Tom Goldstein on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent arguments over the Affordable Care Act, the latest April Fools prank by «hoaxing mastermind» (and stellar disclaimer writer) Eric Turkewitz, and much more.

Now, the U.S. Supreme Court will examine that issue in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, [1] which is slated for oral argument on March 26, 2018.

The full version of the report — which was available via Hulu.com last week but has since been withdrawn — discloses that NBC gave the story only five minutes — an eternity now, but not remarkable for a major story of the day in 1979 — before moving on to a report on that day's argument in the U.S. Supreme Court in the affirmative action case of United Steelworkers of America v. Weber:

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard the oral arguments in the B.C. hearing fees case, now known as Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), a case I have much blogged about as it made its way through the B.C. courts (where it was known Villardell v. Dunham, both on trial and on appeal).

I wrote yesterday about the oral argument which the Supreme Court heard on Monday in the case now known as Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), formerly Villardell v. Dunham.

Now, I've heard your argument that, unlike in TWU 2001, a BCLS decision would be reviewed by the Court on a standard of reasonableness (possible, although I note that the Dore decision involved a disciplinary hearing, which is a very different context from the current fact pattern).

The court considered submissions made on behalf of the defendant that it should now be recognised that it is wrong in law to award exemplary damages relying on the speech of Lord Scott in Kuddus v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary [2001] UKHL 29, [2001] All ER (D) 30 (Jun), and considered the arguments for and against the award of exemplary damages put out in some detail in the Law Commission's Report on Aggravated, Exemplary and Restitutionary Damages (1997)(Law Com No 247).

The judge held that the claimant had a reasonable prospect of success in his claim, and indeed the better side of the argument; that, although there was a good arguable case for English law and jurisdiction, the claimant did not have the better argument — in respect of jurisdiction, the defendant had much the better side of the argument; and that since it was common ground that if the contracts had been made, they had been made in England, the English court had a basis for exercising its discretion to take jurisdiction under CPR 6.20 (5)(a)(now 6BPD.3 — 3.1 (6)(a).

While today you don't have to travel hundreds of miles by dogsled to hear cases as your predecessor judges based in Alaska once did, you probably now have the most grueling commute of any federal appellate judge to arrive at the locations where your court regularly hears oral arguments.