Sentences with phrase «as judicial error»

They may lose their cases for a host of reasons unrelated to the merits such as judicial error, refusal or inability of witnesses to testify, novel interpretations in he law or the vagaries of jury verdicts.

Not exact matches

But shouldn't critics of «the judicial usurpation of politics» take at least some comfort in the fact that the error was on the side of democracy, as it were?

Just as all scientists must live with the ever - present possibility of experimental error, so too mathematicians, like our judicial system, may sometimes have to settle not for absolute proof but rather proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

As the statute is currently written, there is no review, judicial, administrative, or otherwise, of the Secretary's determination of a high or sustained payment error.

Although Markman assigned claim construction to the trial judge, it did not expressly state whether factual findings subsumed in that issue are subject to de novo review (as normally would be the case for legal rulings) or to review for «clear error» (as normally would apply to judicial fact findings).

So long as there is some basis for an inference — in other words, the particular inference is reasonably open — even if that inference appears to have been drawn as a result of illogical reasoning, there is no place for judicial review because no error of law has taken place.»

The story is covered in this article, Filing Error Comes at a Bad Time for Federal Judicial Hopeful, from The National Law Journal as well as in this local news story.

Rather than equating the FSA's reliance on the privileged material with the public law concept of taking into account an irrelevant matter, the judge held that it was more accurate to consider the error as equivalent to a judicial or administrative body acting, in part, on inadmissible evidence.

court of Orleans is created, taken in connection with the Judicial Act, and that a writ of error would lie to a judgment rendered by the court for the District of Kentucky in such a case as this.

In the alternative, if CN Rail made an error then proceeding as a class action «would provide access to justice and judicial economy for a mass mistake in an efficient and manageable way.

We have evolved from Mallios v. La Reine, [1978] Q.J. no 380, there Greenberg, J. of the Quebec Superior Court was considering whether the trial judge was in error in taking judicial notice of the fact that Montreal Harbour was in Canadian waters south of the sixtieth parallel of north latitude: 12 «Judicial Notice» is the act by which a Court, in conducting a trial or framing its decision, will of its own motion, and without production of evidence, recognize the existence and truth of certain facts having a bearing on the controversy, which are universally regarded as established by common notoriety; that is, facts which can not reasonably be the subject of a contjudicial notice of the fact that Montreal Harbour was in Canadian waters south of the sixtieth parallel of north latitude: 12 «Judicial Notice» is the act by which a Court, in conducting a trial or framing its decision, will of its own motion, and without production of evidence, recognize the existence and truth of certain facts having a bearing on the controversy, which are universally regarded as established by common notoriety; that is, facts which can not reasonably be the subject of a contJudicial Notice» is the act by which a Court, in conducting a trial or framing its decision, will of its own motion, and without production of evidence, recognize the existence and truth of certain facts having a bearing on the controversy, which are universally regarded as established by common notoriety; that is, facts which can not reasonably be the subject of a controversy.

Various «standards» of review apply in Australia to the errors which may constitute jurisdictional errors — though they are generally not referred to as «standards» and are not open to judicial selection.

It is alleged by the defendant in error in this case that the plea to the jurisdiction was a sufficient plea; that it shows, on inspection of its allegations, confessed by the demurrer, that the plaintiff was not a citizen of the State of Missouri; that, upon this record, it must appear to this court that the case was not within the judicial power of the United States as defined and granted by the Constitution, because it was not a suit by a citizen of one State against a citizen of another State.

Such judicial immunity applies even if «the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority» so long as the judge did not act in the «clear absence of all jurisdiction.»

(For example, in the Dutch Industries case, where the Commissioner was a responding party as the case was a judicial review, the Commissioner did not appear at the hearings, however filed an affidavit directed at its general practices regarding maintenance fees / errors regarding entity status.)

If it may be thought that any error was entailed in the Court's perception of jurisdiction, such an apprehension by itself, would not justify the reversal of the Macharia Ruling, a decision which, as we must take judicial notice, will have established itself as a mark of certainty and predictability in the law,... on the basis of which numbers of people will have figured out their rights and expectations.

It is an important contribution to understanding the most common errors in judicial practice and social policy in this arena, as well as in mental health practice.