Sentences with phrase «arguments in a court of law»

Even today, eye witness accounts of crime are very weak arguments in a court of law.

Not exact matches

There are a number of examples in Canadian case law where issuers were attempting to sell «utilities» or something similar to modern day tokens and coins, where the court simply didn't buy the argument.

«This is a huge win for religious liberty,» said Douglas Laycock, a University of Virginia Law School professor who represented the church at the Supreme Court's oral arguments in October.

A federal judge will hear arguments Monday on a temporary restraining order against an Oklahoma referendum that would ban the use of Islamic religious law in state courts.

In «Courting Cowardice,» published this week in the New York Times, Maureen Dowd attacks the natural law argument that since marriage is for procreation, homosexual couples are de facto incapable of being marrieIn «Courting Cowardice,» published this week in the New York Times, Maureen Dowd attacks the natural law argument that since marriage is for procreation, homosexual couples are de facto incapable of being marriein the New York Times, Maureen Dowd attacks the natural law argument that since marriage is for procreation, homosexual couples are de facto incapable of being married.

The reasons for accepting it do not form the kind of deductive proof we require in logic or pure mathematics, but they resemble the arguments used in a court of law to establish innocence or culpability.

Your arguments are absurd, immaterial to the issue, and if you were arguing this in a court of law, you would most assuredly be ruled against.

This week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases regarding the constitutionality of laws prohibiting gay marriage.

This week, the Supreme Court justices heard arguments challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996.

And in a court of law I believe that would be a sufficient argument to send him down.

In a celebrated case brought by a group of civil libertarians to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1942, Chief Justice Robert Jackson, against the strong argument of civil libertarians on the issues of «interrogation without the due process of law» and prolonged detention of suspects, gave his famous ruling that the United States «Constitution is not a suicide pact»In a celebrated case brought by a group of civil libertarians to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1942, Chief Justice Robert Jackson, against the strong argument of civil libertarians on the issues of «interrogation without the due process of law» and prolonged detention of suspects, gave his famous ruling that the United States «Constitution is not a suicide pact»in 1942, Chief Justice Robert Jackson, against the strong argument of civil libertarians on the issues of «interrogation without the due process of law» and prolonged detention of suspects, gave his famous ruling that the United States «Constitution is not a suicide pact».

Also at 1 p.m., the New York Civil Liberties Union presents oral arguments in the Albany County Supreme Court challenging the exclusion of farmworkers from the state labor law that protects employees who organize, Albany County Courthouse, 16 Eagle St., Albany.

The seven - member Court of Appeals heard oral arguments yesterday in two cases where a midlevel appellate court unanimously concluded last year that state oil and gas law doesn't trump the authority of local governments to control landCourt of Appeals heard oral arguments yesterday in two cases where a midlevel appellate court unanimously concluded last year that state oil and gas law doesn't trump the authority of local governments to control landcourt unanimously concluded last year that state oil and gas law doesn't trump the authority of local governments to control land use.

Putland could improve his argument, and thereby this answer could be improved, with reference to cases where the separation of powers was established in Australian law (Arbitration Court's case for example?)

On January 10, a U.S. District Court held oral arguments in Green Party of Tennessee et al v Goins, a lawsuit in which the Green and Constitution Parties challenge the Tennessee ballot access law for new and previously unqualified parties.

The 80 minutes of occasionally spirited argument at the high court this morning focused on the two main issues in the greenhouse gas litigation: For the case to go forward, the plaintiffs must prove that the case has legal standing (they must show that the court is the right venue for resolving this dispute), and that the common law definition of nuisance can support suits over greenhouse gases.

Judge Denise Casper didn't accept that argument, but she also didn't prevent them from returning to court with their allegations later, says Paul Rothstein, a professor of torts, evidence, and civil litigation at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C. «The court is plainly telling these people to raise all their arguments in the administrative proceeding that is still ongoing,» he says.

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

But she's especially looking forward to a publication forthcoming later this year in the Yale Journal of Law & Feminism titled «Telling Stories in the Supreme Court: Voices Briefs and the Role of Democracy in Constitutional Deliberation,» which will analyze a new, controversial form of appellate narrative argument: briefs that share stories of individuals not parties to the case at hand.

All Rise (Unrated) Legal argument documentary following the fortunes of seven law students from seven different countries (Palestine, Israel, Uganda, Jamaica, Russia, India and Singapore) as they compete in the world's largest moot court competition staged in Washington, DC.

A legal - reform advocacy group that contends numerous laws, court rulings, and regulations hamper schools in their job of educating students has launched a Web site to help dramatize its arguments.

Strong chapters on school desegregation, bilingual education, education for the disabled, and school finance all support Davies's argument that «in the 1970s, reform often emanated from... within the federal bureaucracy, from the lower federal courts, and through the energetic efforts of congressional staffers, lobbyists, and public interest law firms.»

Addressing the plaintiff's argument from First - Amendment rights, the Court held in contrast that the federal non-discrimination laws «do... not violate constitutionally protected rights of free association and privacy, or a parent's right to direct the education of his children.»

Includes full details of both cases arguments made final judgements in court and what this means for the law.

On Wednesday, the Star Tribune's Beena Raghavendran reported that the Minnesota Court of Appeals heard oral arguments for a lawsuit in which a group of parents are challenging the constitutionality of Minnesota's teacher tenure, dismissal, and «last in, first out» laws.

Students from Paddock View Residential Center watch the live feed outside the Indiana Supreme Court during oral arguments in a challenge of the state's voucher law.

The State Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday morning in a challenge of the state's voucher law.

According to the Sue Oliver of Kirkland & Ellis — the law firm representing McKinley Parents for Change in court, pro bono — the board's only concrete argument was that one parent's paperwork wasn't stapled together correctly, and that another's numbers weren't in the right order.

Yet in November 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in a shock judgment, that followed strong arguments from the banks expensive barristers, that due to a narrow technical decision bank charges didn't NEED to be fair — well at least on the main piece of law that was tried.

University of Connecticut law professor Jessica Rubin, left, and law student Taylor Hansen prepare to present arguments as animal advocates in a dog fighting case on May 30, 2017, in Superior Court in Hartford, Conn..

Last week's decision by Judge Ernest A. Goldsmith of state superior court in San Francisco offers a second look at some of the arguments being made against A.B. 32, the state climate - change law passed in Sacramento in 2006.

The immediate threat in the United States is that dirty energy lobbyists will effectively use hypothetical arguments of WTO or NAFTA illegality to chill congressional action and provide cover for U.S. legislators who are indebted to Big Oil, Big Coal and the LNG lobby for campaign contributions, even though international trade law is not incorporated into U.S. domestic law and violations can not be enforced in U.S. domestic courts.

«We know that we have the stronger legal arguments in this case and that California courts have interpreted state law correctly, including within the parameters of takings analysis,» says Angela Howe, Legal Director for the Surfrider Foundation.

By enshrining in law the anti-GMO arguments of environmentalists about Bt eggplant, and rejecting science and reason in the process, the Phillipine Court of Appeals has placed in real jeopardy one of the most important potential advances in agriculture and human health since the Green Revolution of the 1960s and 70s.

If one takes the perspective of counsel representing an investor in an imagined intra-EU arbitration not (directly) related to EU law, one plausible argument is that since the arbitration stems from a purely domestic measure, the autonomy concerns of the Court are entirely immaterial to the dispute at hand.

As far as the Court of Appeal was concerned, however, the fl aw in this argument lay in the fact that there was no existing common law duty at the time that FIA 2000 was passed.

The Court's contention that EU law provides for a complete system of remedies, or at least remedies «sufficient to ensure effective judicial protection for individual parties in the fields covered by EU law» (Case C - 64 / 16, para. 34) has to be understood as a formalistic conception in the sense that BITs clearly provide more complete and effective remedies to investors than EU law or domestic law — and this understanding has been at the heart of the reasoning of arbitral tribunals in cases where they have rejected the argument that intra-EU BITs are incompatible with EU law.

The Court also — in a bit of a formalistic reasoning — rejected the argument that the supposedly criminal law nature of these articles fell outside the scope of article 207 TFEU because «that argument does not explain why Article 114 TFEU would be the correct legal basis in the circumstances» (para. 72).

While most of the curriculum at Harvard during this time consisted of lecture and student recitation, skills development was also provided in the form of weekly moot courts, during which students argued questions of law before professors and submitted occasional written disputations on legal subjects.121 Although Stearns had previously used moot courts in his teaching at Harvard, Story and Ashmun refined them.122 Cases were handed out the week before argument, and two counsel were assigned to each side.123 The cases would then be argued the next Friday, with the other students taking notes of the argument; the professor in charge that week would issue a written opinion.124

18 Unlike the extracurricular interscholastic competitions that bear the same name today, the moot courts of this period were mandatory exercises in the law school curriculum, modeled after the «moots» of the Inns of Courts in England.19 The law school professors of the day gave the students a fictitious case and assisted the students in drafting the pleadings and other documents, preparing the arguments, and then arguing the case.20 In theory, if not always in practice, these were the forerunners of today's legal writing classes that emphasize persuasive wrcourts of this period were mandatory exercises in the law school curriculum, modeled after the «moots» of the Inns of Courts in England.19 The law school professors of the day gave the students a fictitious case and assisted the students in drafting the pleadings and other documents, preparing the arguments, and then arguing the case.20 In theory, if not always in practice, these were the forerunners of today's legal writing classes that emphasize persuasive writinin the law school curriculum, modeled after the «moots» of the Inns of Courts in England.19 The law school professors of the day gave the students a fictitious case and assisted the students in drafting the pleadings and other documents, preparing the arguments, and then arguing the case.20 In theory, if not always in practice, these were the forerunners of today's legal writing classes that emphasize persuasive wrCourts in England.19 The law school professors of the day gave the students a fictitious case and assisted the students in drafting the pleadings and other documents, preparing the arguments, and then arguing the case.20 In theory, if not always in practice, these were the forerunners of today's legal writing classes that emphasize persuasive writinin England.19 The law school professors of the day gave the students a fictitious case and assisted the students in drafting the pleadings and other documents, preparing the arguments, and then arguing the case.20 In theory, if not always in practice, these were the forerunners of today's legal writing classes that emphasize persuasive writinin drafting the pleadings and other documents, preparing the arguments, and then arguing the case.20 In theory, if not always in practice, these were the forerunners of today's legal writing classes that emphasize persuasive writinIn theory, if not always in practice, these were the forerunners of today's legal writing classes that emphasize persuasive writinin practice, these were the forerunners of today's legal writing classes that emphasize persuasive writing.

It revolves around a simulated court proceeding, in which teams representing both sides of the argument prepare written pleadings with respect to a fictional problem of international human rights law and policy, and present their arguments in an oral argument before the International Court of Juscourt proceeding, in which teams representing both sides of the argument prepare written pleadings with respect to a fictional problem of international human rights law and policy, and present their arguments in an oral argument before the International Court of JusCourt of Justice.

«The executive is bound to comply with the rule of law that prevails in this jurisdiction,» Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the 5 - to - 3 majority, said at the end of a 73 - page opinion that in sober tones shredded each of the administration's arguments, including the assertion that Congress had stripped the court of jurisdiction to decide the case.

Nevertheless, the arguments are frequently crunched through, probably because of an important Illinois Supreme Court ruling from 1990 which is still good law, Rollins v. Ellwood, involving claims brought against a Baltimore police officer, among others, sounding in intentional tort for his role in the apprehension of a misidentified criminal defendant and Illinois resident in Illinois, for which the Court found the officer was not subject to Illinois jurisdiction.

«We worked over the fall semester learning the intricacies of the law in order to develop the arguments to address the three main issues of the case,» said Paula Arias, Director of the International Moot Court Program and team coach.

Second is today's oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, which «concerns the torture of Ogoni leaders in Nigeria, but at stake is the future of the law under which this case was brought, the Alien Tort Statute.»

* One of the major roles of an Anchorage criminal defense attorney is to present arguments and proofs in the court of law to defend his / her client against criminal accusations.

Future lawyers got a courtroom seat right in their own law school Wednesday as the 3rd District Court of Appeals heard arguments in two cases at Ohio Northern University.

The Court's argument (at para 114) that «no one would have been in charge» of the forests unless the BC government intended the words «vested in the Crown» to apply to lands with pending claims of aboriginal title is further evidence of the Court's lack of acknowledgment of the possibility of indigenous laws.

These were to address one or more of eight issues seen as important to courts: form - filling — making court documents more accessible to litigants in person; order drafting — creating orders that are more likely to be accepted by courts; continuous online hearing — challenging the question of whether a court is a place or a service; argument - building — to aid non-lawyers in creating well - structured arguments, distinguishing fact from law; outcome prediction — using technology to answer the natural question «what are my chances of winning?»

For example, a casual perusal of the online legal research service Westlaw reveals that «mumbo jumbo» appears at least 251 times in judicial opinions.8 «Jibber - jabber» shows up just seven times (although surprisingly used by parties, rather than in statements from the court), while the more prosaic «gobbledygook» has 126 hits in the legal database.9 Believed to have been coined in 1944 by U.S. Rep. Maury Maverick of Texas, «gobbledygook» has been used by everyone from political figures referring to bureaucratic doublespeak (for example, President Ronald Reagan's stinging 1985 indictment of tax law revisions as «cluttered with gobbledygook and loopholes designed for those with the power and influence to have high - priced legal and tax advisers») to judges decrying the indecipherable arguments and pleadings of the lawyers practicing before them.