Sentences with phrase «as bright line rules»

In law such rules are known as Bright Line Rules: rather than 20 million words of tax law, you simply declare «any financial transaction whose only conceivable motivation is the avoidance of tax is by definition illegal».

Not exact matches

Rarely in education issues as complex as teacher evaluation do courts issue bright - line, black - or - white rulings; rather, as Ruszkowski put it, «we are continuing to implement this year over year knowing that the courts will have to work it out.»

Counsel for CN and McKercher are also expected to clash over the «professional litigant exception» to the bright line rule, where consent to act adverse in interest may be inferred from entities such as banks, governments, or large corporations.

As Denniston also reported when the case was argued in April, a group of former top Justice Department officials, ex-prosecutors at the federal and state levels, and former judges asked the court to keep the Jackson decision intact, saying it had provided a «bright - line rule» that had become «embedded in routine police practice,» just as had the warnings requirement of Miranda v. ArizonAs Denniston also reported when the case was argued in April, a group of former top Justice Department officials, ex-prosecutors at the federal and state levels, and former judges asked the court to keep the Jackson decision intact, saying it had provided a «bright - line rule» that had become «embedded in routine police practice,» just as had the warnings requirement of Miranda v. Arizonas had the warnings requirement of Miranda v. Arizona.

Theodore Bernstein, John Trimble, R.W. Burchfield, Patricia T. O'Conner, and Bill Walsh also advise following a bright - line rule for hyphenating most phrasal adjectives because, as Garner summarizes, the hyphens make reading faster and easier:

Back in August 2004, right after Blakely was decided, super-SCOTUS-litigator Jeff Fisher wrote this article highlighting the «virtues of bright - line rules» such as the one articulated in Apprendi and applied in Blakely.

However, the recent New Mexico Supreme Court Blakely ruling (basics here) asserts that the Apprendi - Blakely - Booker line of cases «ought not be viewed as drawing a bright line,» and the California Supreme Court's summer ruling on Blakely (basics here, commentary here and here) likewise asserts that the «high court's precedents do not draw a bright line.»

But my first reaction is that Cunningham sets up a great test of whether the Roberts Court is going to define and develop the Apprendi - Blakely rule as a bright line.

As Justice Alito recognizes in his Cunningham dissent, the «bright - line rule» set forth in Apprendi was intended to identify when judicial discretion is acceptable.

Previously, over-breadth in the «bright line» rule was thought tempered by the belief that large clients would be reasonable and that courts could address remaining over-breadth in exercising discretion as to remedy.

Rather than use language such as «candor,» we spelled out «a lawyer must not lie to...» We extended conflicts and confidentiality rules to not only firms but associations of lawyers, we tried to draw a «bright line» in terms of conflicts»

As noted by Harvey Morrison, «[i] f there were any hopes that the Supreme Court of Canada would moderate the rigour of the bright line rule in Neil, they were dashed in Strother.»

Adoption of an approach to regulating conflicts of interest that diverges significantly from the Supreme Court's bright line test and interpretation of fiduciary duties might lead to lawyers being removed as counsel by a court even though they have complied with the rules set by law societies.

The «bright - line rule» as first articulated in Neil provided that a lawyer could not act in a matter directly adverse to the immediate interests of a current client without proper consent.

In the American law from which both the bright line rule and the substantial risk principle are derived, the substantial risk test is what defines when a conflict arises; the bright line rule is relevant as a way of identifying whether or not there is a substantial risk.

The bright line rule is, as noted above, «the general rule that a lawyer may not represent one client whose interests are directly adverse to the immediate interests of another current client — even if the two mandates are unrelated» (cited in McKercher at para 27).

The case invited the Court to reconsider its «bright line» rule for current client conflicts, as previously set out by the Court in R v Neil, 2002 SCC 70.

According to the filing, the IA is focusing on three major areas: the removal of rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization distort competition and places the burden on consumers, the removal of well - established, bright line net neutrality rules harms internet companies» ability to reach customers across the country, and the new rules harm future growth in the internet ecosystem as a whole.

The rules establish a bright line test under which corporate divisions, subsidiaries, and affiliates will be treated as separately for the purposes of gaining for access to the registry.