Sentences with phrase «as the trial judge made»

The appeal was allowed as the trial judge made an error by failing to provide jury with a proper summary of the evidence, having referred frequently to the claimant's «entitlement» to compensation, without adequate emphasis on the question of legal causation.

Not exact matches

«For the record, we wish to make it clear that as we start this trial David Baazov and his counsel have not been given by the AMF or this court the time necessary to review the millions of documents disclosed and judged potentially relevant,» she said.

«I have made an order which has to be obeyed and the order is to the effect that the accused be allowed to go abroad as from November 4 to treat his ailment within three weeks and return to the court on November 26 for his trial in the charges brought against him», the judge had said.

On Monday, while ordering the court bailiff to make another attempt to serve Jonathan with the witness summons, the judge insisted that the trial must continue with Metuh either testifying himself or calling on another witness other than the former President as his next witness.

Among the first people who made into this list (as was admitted) were the judges and prosecutors of the trial over Khodorkovsky, a Russian businessman who was accused in illegal privatization, tax evasion and murdering people via his security service.

Although a judge initially ruled that Singh's words constituted an assertion of fact, which would have made it hard for him to win a trial case, in April 2010 an appeals court found that his statement qualified as «fair comment» and was therefore protected.

As defendants in the Vergara trial were asking the court to dismiss the case, attorneys for the state's two biggest teachers union met with reporters outside the courthouse to offer a preview of arguments they intend to make if the judge denies their request, and the trial resumes next month with witnesses for the defense.

Rumor has it the actual production version of the Lamborghini Urus SUV could be unveiled at the 2017 Shanghai Auto Show, which would make sense as the Concept was shown in Beijing five years ago, and judging from the test mule that has been spotted during winter trials in Northern Europe the styling has been modified since then.

Instead, Apple filed motions last month to appeal Judge Denise Cote's date for the damages portion of the ongoing case — damages which can be as high as 800 + million dollars, if punitive rulings are imposed — on the grounds that they were certain the case would be thrown out once it finishes with its appeal of Cote's guilty ruling, making the damages trial a waste of time and money.

We can't always avoid doing things which cause grip problems, but as we all know, grips are judged in trials, and they should be judged in training as well, so we better make sure we help the dogs get back to where they work as well as they can.

As you drive, the points at which these tracks converge could see you heading off onto a different section of track, and without a mini-map in the corner this makes judging braking points and setting up racing lines near impossible with trial and error.

This makes about as much sense as a defendant sitting as judge at his own trial.

When I began my own career as a district court judge, I made it a point to meet with every jury in any case I tried so that I could answer their questions and get their impressions on the trial process and their role as a jury.

In its decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal noted the trial judge «made many errors» stating the original interpretation did not take into consideration that a two - step process involving consultation by both the province and the federal government is unnecessary, as the treaty right is protected.

... Nor did the trial judge identify any aspect of Simonson's conduct in making the impugned representations independent from his activity as a corporate officer.

The evidentiary rulings as to relevance can only be based upon the trial judge's understanding at that time of what the evidence is expected to show, and here the judge made a proper ruling.

Just as Judge Boswell correctly demanded a court cite for the ADA's assertion that Wilson did have the «right» to pro se, she should have made the demand of Wilson if for no other reason than a test of Wilson's ability to handle a trial.

This marks the second effort in the last several years to have intermediate appellate court judges sit as trial judges; Michigan made a similar move in 2013 when it made specially designated judges of that state's Court of Appeals into the state's Court of Claims.

Litigators can learn from directors, producers, actors and screen writers to develop a focused trial theme with entertainment value and drama that actively engages jurors and judges in the decision - making process, with the attorney as a trusted guide.

On Final Appeal In front of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, the plaintiff made essentially the same arguments as below and convinced the court that the trial judge was proper in increasing the amount of the damages award.

The problem with this approach, as Justice Butler makes clear, is that a trial judge can not do their job without all the issues before them.

Furthermore the Court of Appeal was of the view on the issue of credibility that it was not open to the trial judge to discount the claimant's reports to doctors as exaggeration because of his account of the accident unless the judge concluded the claimant was not so informed, a finding that the judge did not make and an issue he did not address.

The claim had not been compromised as the judge had stated and so the judge had not been bound by BCT Software Solutions Ltd v C Brewer & Sons Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 393, [2003] All ER (D) 196 (Jul)-- where parties have settled on all issues save costs before a trial or where a trial is incomplete, the court should not, save in a reasonably obvious case, embark on making an order for costs because the court will have no proper basis of agreed or determined facts upon which to base its decision.

The court confirmed that an appellate court should interfere only where a mistake is made as to an «extricable question of law» or where overall the trial judge reached a completely irrational decision.

The RIAA's only jury - trial win, the case against Minnesota mother Jammie Thomas, is expected to be declared a mistrial any day now due to the judge's second thoughts on whether copyright law requires proof of an actual transfer of files, as opposed to simply making them available.

He also knew — he must have known — that as a judge in an adversarial trial one option open to him was to sit silently and quietly and listen to the witnesses and the lawyers, making such rulings as he was asked or required to make, and issuing a decision at the end.

The trial judge made no findings as to which version he accepted.

Even a very incomplete list gives an impression of the large number of significant opinions he has written: seminal administrative law cases such as Chevron v. NRDC and Massachusetts v. EPA, the intellectual property case Sony Corp v. Universal City Studios (which made clear that making individual videotapes of television programs did not constitute copyright infringement), important war on terror precedents such as Rasul v. Bush and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, important criminal law cases such as Padilla v. Kentucky (holding that defense counsel must inform the defendant if a guilty plea carries a risk of deportation) and Atkins v. Virginia (which reversed precedent to hold it was unconstitutional to impose capital punishment on the mentally retarded), and of course Apprendi v. New Jersey (which revolutionized criminal sentencing by holding that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences beyond statutory maximums based on facts other than those decided by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt).

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made an error of law by ignoring the legal doctrine that an agreement that is signed in counterparts forms a binding agreement as demonstrated in Foley v R., [2000] 4 CTC 2016 (TCC).1

(12) In an action for loss or damage from bodily injury or death arising directly or indirectly from the use or operation of an automobile, a judge shall, on motion made before trial with the consent of the parties or in accordance with an order of a judge who conducts a pre-trial conference, determine for the purpose of subsections (3) and (5) whether, as a result of the use or operation of the automobile, the injured person has died or has sustained,

On the basis of the contingent fee arrangement which the attorney had made with O'Hara, that would have entitled the attorney to a fee of about $ 62,215, which is what the trial judge allowed as the fee to be paid by Junior Sales.

Because awards are made «once and for all» at the time of trial, judges must «peer into the future» and fix the damages «as best they can».

The trial judge permitted it be played (to the jury), made the video an exhibit, «though the [defence] had not disclosed the existence of surveillance in an affidavit of documents as required by the Rules and had not provided particulars of it».

That parent will have a second opportunity to make their case for the proposed move at trial where they may well be in a position to adduce evidence establishing that the present circumstances are having a deleterious impact on the child's physical or emotional needs; and having lost their initial chambers application, the moving parent no doubt will come away from the experience as a «dress rehearsal» having learned all the flaws and gaps in their factual / legal presentation that they can improve upon and fill in for the trial judge.

(3) In an action for loss or damage from bodily injury or death arising directly or indirectly from the use or operation of an automobile, a judge shall, on motion made before trial with the consent of the parties or in accordance with an order of a judge who conducts a pre-trial conference, determine if, as a result of the use or operation of the automobile, the injured person has died or has sustained,

369; para. 4) 43 The accused made no such request before Justice Marshall in this case; however, as related in the affidavit of Ms. Rhinelander, Mr. Rein was unaware until after the trial that Justice Marshall had been the pre-trial judge.

There is no rule of law or of practice which requires a trial Judge to make any ruling as to the order in which witnesses for the defence should be called.

The trial judge's statement of when the but - for test «may be relaxed», if it is intended to relate back to the material contribution test — as it seems to be — amounts to a version of the claim that the Alberta Court of Appeal made in Resurfice, which the Supreme Court expressly rejected.

The judge's order in the case can charitably be described as «blistering» and it makes clear that the decision to order a new trial turned entirely on the internet comments.

And it doesn't matter whether the reviewing court rather than the trial court makes this finding.The crux of the decision lies in the fact that «the State failed to prove its case as a matter of law, not merely because [the judge], as a 13th juror, would have decided it differently from the other 12 jurors.»

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeal partially upheld a trial judge's decision awarding over $ 70,000 in damages to the purchasers of a home as a result of fraudulent misrepresentations made by the vendors prior to the deal going through.

So yes, the trial Judge has to make a leap and use common sense as opposed to scientific precision.

In the Alberta Court of Appeal ruling reported as R v Wagar, 2015 ABCA 327 Justice Brian K. O'Ferrall, speaking for a unanimous court, made short shrift of Justice Camp's judgment, at p. 1: ``... [W] e are satisfied that the trial judge's comments throughout the proceedings and in his reasons gave rise to doubts about the trial judge's understanding of the law governing sexual assaults and in particular, the meaning of consent and restrictions on evidence of the complainant's sexual activity... We are also persuaded that sexual stereotypes and stereotypical myths, which have long since been discredited, may have found their way into the trial judge's judgment.»

(10) BTA Bank v. Ablyazov (CA)[2013] 1 WLR 1854 A judge had not erred in refusing to recuse himself as the trial judge following his finding of contempt against a defendant, as there was no real possibility of bias and the right to make an application had been waived.

The law in British Columbia is however clear, unless it could be said that, on the evidence properly adduced, it was not open to him to conclude as he did without making what is said to be a palpable and overriding error, the Court of Appeal can not interfere with the decision of a trial judge.

In those cases, written argument is used, not in lieu of oral argument, but in addition to and usually as a precursor to oral argument.If a trial judge requires arguments to be made by written submissions, the trial judge must allow counsel, after written argument has been exchanged, to make oral arguments in the presence of the accused to supplement, correct, or otherwise amplify the written argument.

This form of litigation attack is made by way of affidavit and is often merely a tactic by a wealthy litigant to harass the other, as it must be met, or to insert into the Court file material prejudicial to the other litigant and not necessarily lost on the eventual trial judge, who may wish to peruse the Court file before the hearing.

And this was consistent when a) state senators were elected by counties to represent the county as a whole (as in New Jersey) or clusters of counties (as in New York) and b) trial judges (and occasionally appellate judges) were picked by districts made up of clusters of counties.

The appellant husband argued that (1) the trial judge erred in how he ordered the equalization payment to be paid; and (2) this error led the trial judge to make a further error with respect to his costs award, as it resulted in the trial judge failing to properly assess the reasonableness of the appellant husband's offers to settle.

However, Sportsodds appealed against the limited declarations of invalidity that the trial judge had made — it sought wider declarations of invalidity in relation to Part IV of the Racing Administration Act 1998 (NSW) on two grounds — that it could not be severed from the invalid provisions of that Act and that those provisions were independently invalid as contrary to the constitutional guarantee of free trade among the States.