Sentences with phrase «arguments in the case called»

On January 30, a small claims court in Los Angeles County heard arguments in the case called Patel v Associated Students.

Not exact matches

The plaintiffs» motion states that in June 14 and 15 conference calls, counsel for the three sets of plaintiffs stated that they supported coordination or consolidation, «subject to the parties» agreement that these three cases will retain their separate identities, allowing each set of plaintiffs to file separate briefs, make separate oral arguments, and independently make other litigation decisions.»

The same is true in any case When a difference does arise Call it an argument — call it a war Most words do tell of lCall it an argument — call it a war Most words do tell of lcall it a war Most words do tell of lies.

The report, called «Separating Church and State: The Case for Disestablishment», outlines the central arguments for splitting the church and state and considers the challenges involved in making this a reality.

In a case that could upend New York's political landscape, a state Supreme Court justice heard oral arguments in a lawsuit seeking to eliminate the so - called «LLC loophole» in state election law, which has given developers and other deep - pocketed donors the ability give essentially unlimited campaign donations to state politicianIn a case that could upend New York's political landscape, a state Supreme Court justice heard oral arguments in a lawsuit seeking to eliminate the so - called «LLC loophole» in state election law, which has given developers and other deep - pocketed donors the ability give essentially unlimited campaign donations to state politicianin a lawsuit seeking to eliminate the so - called «LLC loophole» in state election law, which has given developers and other deep - pocketed donors the ability give essentially unlimited campaign donations to state politicianin state election law, which has given developers and other deep - pocketed donors the ability give essentially unlimited campaign donations to state politicians.

The former senator, who, according to an aide, served in Congress with Kasich, called his chosen candidate «a proven political winner in a very tough state for Republicans» — ironically, the very same argument Pataki is making as he makes his case for his long - shot bid for the presidency.

In a case that could upend New York's political landscape, a state Supreme Court justice heard oral arguments on Wednesday in a lawsuit seeking to eliminate the so - called «LLC loophole» in state election law, which has given developers and other deep - pocketed donors the ability give essentially unlimited campaign donations to state politicianIn a case that could upend New York's political landscape, a state Supreme Court justice heard oral arguments on Wednesday in a lawsuit seeking to eliminate the so - called «LLC loophole» in state election law, which has given developers and other deep - pocketed donors the ability give essentially unlimited campaign donations to state politicianin a lawsuit seeking to eliminate the so - called «LLC loophole» in state election law, which has given developers and other deep - pocketed donors the ability give essentially unlimited campaign donations to state politicianin state election law, which has given developers and other deep - pocketed donors the ability give essentially unlimited campaign donations to state politicians.

During closing arguments in the corruption trial against state Sen. Dean Skelos and his son, Adam, a lawyer for the younger Skelos told jurors that the government's case against the former majority leader relies on burdening the jury with heaps of emails, phone calls and witness testimony to distract jurors from the lack of a supposed smoking gun.

Legal experts note that judges» opinions in environmental cases won't necessarily fall strictly along ideological lines, but that conservative judges are often more likely to reject arguments calling for more regulation or trying to fit climate change rules within the existing Clean Air Act.

I drew on the book heavily in a post earlier this year to make the case that those calling themselves «climate skeptics» are not making good faith arguments.

Josh Dunn called in to discuss the oral arguments in this case with EdNext Editor - in - chief Marty West on the EdNext Podcast.

Well, I don't think Farnish is calling for genocide, just a transformation of society so radical someone could argue it would result in mass death (alternately, you can make the opposite case that doing nothing is / will have similar consequences — but I don't like either argument).

In summary, a strong case can be made that the US emissions reduction commitment for 2025 of 26 % to 28 % clearly fails to pass minimum ethical scrutiny when one considers: (a) the 2007 IPCC report on which the US likely relied upon to establish a 80 % reduction target by 2050 also called for 25 % to 40 % reduction by developed countries by 2020, and (b) although reasonable people may disagree with what «equity» means under the UNFCCC, the US commitments can't be reconciled with any reasonable interpretation of what «equity» requires, (c) the United States has expressly acknowledged that its commitments are based upon what can be achieved under existing US law not on what is required of it as a mater of justice, (d) it is clear that more ambitious US commitments have been blocked by arguments that alleged unacceptable costs to the US economy, arguments which have ignored US responsibilities to those most vulnerable to climate change, and (e) it is virtually certain that the US commitments can not be construed to be a fair allocation of the remaining carbon budget that is available for the entire world to limit warming to 2 °C.

I drew on the book heavily in a post earlier this year to make the case that those calling themselves «climate skeptics» are not making good faith arguments.

That speaks to me of scientific integrity, and it is refreshing to encounter it in the climate debate which is often dominated by what might be, at best, called «courtroom integrity» in which antagonists vie with each other to present watertight cases immune to argument and contradiction.

Samsung argues that it was Apple's choice to base its» 647 - related arguments on a broader claim construction than the one the Federal Circuit ultimately affirmed (Samsung says «Apple «shot for the moon»»), and «Apple's risk failed» when the appeals court handed down its opinion in what I always just call the «Posner case».

From the point of view of this class — a class I'll just call «lawyers» — it's too clear for argument that (i) law has things to do so that some instrumentalist theory has to be adopted; (ii) few things are simple, so that no single theory will work in every case, whether it's «wealth maximization», «corrective justice», «contract as promise», compensation or deterrence; and (iii) the demands of practice, the solicitor's need to create relations which will be projected into the (uncertain) future and to control the risks his or her client faces, the barrister's need to conduct litigation at a price the parties can afford and in the context of the adversary system, powerfully limit the consideration that a lawyer can give to theory.

[14] The short answer to this argument is that the deadlines set out in the case management order relate to expert witnesses that each party proposed to call as witnesses in their own case.

First, if the guidelines are completely non-severable in all cases (as two district judges have held), she has a right to resentencing; at resentencing she would have a reasonable argument that the SRA's requirement of «a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary,» would call for a sentence with no jail time.

The Court further relied on what it called a «somewhat relaxed» burden of proof in asbestos cases, thereby minimizing the argument that evidence relied upon by the parties would become stale over the passage of time, another policy reason behind the application of statutes of repose.

Even assuming the correctness of the rationale of Wilhalme and Grant, in light of the fact that the statutory language is arguably open to more than one interpretation, those cases do not support the State's arguments in this case, which call more for a rewriting than judicial interpretation of the statutes at issue.

In this case, having a Phoenix construction accident attorney on your team is essential because they already know all the aspects of your case and make sure that their argument is backed up by the witnesses that were called in earlier proceedingIn this case, having a Phoenix construction accident attorney on your team is essential because they already know all the aspects of your case and make sure that their argument is backed up by the witnesses that were called in earlier proceedingin earlier proceedings.

When an individual, group or body is given leave to intervene in a case, they usually submit a written argument (called a factum) and are also given permission to make a brief oral submission to members of the court.

One of the arguments called upon by the insurance industry when claimant personal injury lawyers try to expand the boundaries of tort law is the «floodgates» argument: surely, it is argued, an expansion of liability in such - and - such case will lead to the courts being clogged with unmeritorious claims.

KS: The first Supreme Court argument I saw was in 1999, in a case called NCAA v. Smith.

In England, Lord Camden called their case a «heterogenous heap of rubbish which is only calculated to confound your lordships and mislead the argument».

He's developing his own legal analytics platform called Econo.Mine which is intended to «improve the drafting of expert testimonies and judicial education in economics so that judges can make better use of the arguments presented to them when deciding cases.»

If walls (or in this case sofas) could talk... Having borne witness to 2,631 phone calls, 1,236 arguments and 2,299 hours of phone conversations, it's a good thing they're good at keeping secrets!