Sentences with phrase «as the trial judge ruled»

I do not, however, find it appropriate to rely upon the slightly earlier episode detailed in my Brother STEWART's opinion, ante at 394 U. S. 157, as the trial judge ruled the uncontradicted supporting testimony inadmissible.

Not exact matches

As deliberations close in the AT&T antitrust trial, Judge Richard Leon says he will issue a ruling by June 12.

While Waymo wanted to bring up software trade secrets the company believed Uber took as part of this lawsuit — which is about self - driving hardware called lidar — the judge said it would add too much to this trial but ruled the company could file a separate lawsuit related to software after this ended.

«The home secretary is now running out of legal options after three appeal court judges unanimously dismissed her challenge, ruling that «torture is universally abhorred as an evil» and that the UK can not deport Abu Qatada if there is a risk that evidence gained through forced or violent confessions will be used against him in a trial.

In Thursday's ruling, the appellate court ruled the judge's erroneous instruction to the jury at Silver's trial «was not harmless because it is not clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have reached the same conclusion if properly instructed, as is required by law for the verdict to stand.»

But the trial judge, Justice Okon Abang, had, in a ruling on Monday, dismissed the submission as unknown to law.

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.

In what has turned out to be a landmark decision, the Court ruled in Daubert that federal trial judges must act as gatekeepers in order to exclude unreliable evidence from the courtroom.

It doesn't mean much, ultimately, as allowing the trial to continue doesn't commit the judge to rule one way or the other.

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.

To the fullest extent permitted by law, by your access to the Sites, you agree that: (i) any claim, dispute or cause of action regarding the Sites or these Terms shall be brought individually (NOT AS PART OF A CLASS ACTION) in the federal or state courts of the State of New York, and, such claim / dispute / cause of action will be resolved by a judge and THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL IS HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVED; (ii) you consent to the personal jurisdiction of such courts as the exclusive tribunal for adjudication of any such claim / dispute / cause of action, expressly waiving any right of forum non convenience, change of venue or like right; (iii) your recovery will be limited to actual out - of - pocket costs involved in specifically accessing the Sites (if any) and you expressly waive your right to all other forms of recovery, including by way of example only, punitive, consequential, indirect, incidental, special and exemplary damages as well as attorneys» fees for bringing such claim / dispute / cause of action; and (iv) the court shall apply the law of the State of New York in adjudicating any such claim / dispute / cause of action, except for the choice of law / conflict of law rules of the State of New York (or of any other jurisdiction which would result in the application of the law of any jurisdiction other than the State of New YorkAS PART OF A CLASS ACTION) in the federal or state courts of the State of New York, and, such claim / dispute / cause of action will be resolved by a judge and THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL IS HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVED; (ii) you consent to the personal jurisdiction of such courts as the exclusive tribunal for adjudication of any such claim / dispute / cause of action, expressly waiving any right of forum non convenience, change of venue or like right; (iii) your recovery will be limited to actual out - of - pocket costs involved in specifically accessing the Sites (if any) and you expressly waive your right to all other forms of recovery, including by way of example only, punitive, consequential, indirect, incidental, special and exemplary damages as well as attorneys» fees for bringing such claim / dispute / cause of action; and (iv) the court shall apply the law of the State of New York in adjudicating any such claim / dispute / cause of action, except for the choice of law / conflict of law rules of the State of New York (or of any other jurisdiction which would result in the application of the law of any jurisdiction other than the State of New Yorkas the exclusive tribunal for adjudication of any such claim / dispute / cause of action, expressly waiving any right of forum non convenience, change of venue or like right; (iii) your recovery will be limited to actual out - of - pocket costs involved in specifically accessing the Sites (if any) and you expressly waive your right to all other forms of recovery, including by way of example only, punitive, consequential, indirect, incidental, special and exemplary damages as well as attorneys» fees for bringing such claim / dispute / cause of action; and (iv) the court shall apply the law of the State of New York in adjudicating any such claim / dispute / cause of action, except for the choice of law / conflict of law rules of the State of New York (or of any other jurisdiction which would result in the application of the law of any jurisdiction other than the State of New Yorkas well as attorneys» fees for bringing such claim / dispute / cause of action; and (iv) the court shall apply the law of the State of New York in adjudicating any such claim / dispute / cause of action, except for the choice of law / conflict of law rules of the State of New York (or of any other jurisdiction which would result in the application of the law of any jurisdiction other than the State of New Yorkas attorneys» fees for bringing such claim / dispute / cause of action; and (iv) the court shall apply the law of the State of New York in adjudicating any such claim / dispute / cause of action, except for the choice of law / conflict of law rules of the State of New York (or of any other jurisdiction which would result in the application of the law of any jurisdiction other than the State of New York).

The objects of the Club shall be: (a) to encourage and promote quality in the breeding of purebred Great Danes and to do all possible to bring their natural qualities to perfection; (b) to urge members and breeders to accept the standard of the breed as approved by the American Kennel Club as the only standard of excellence by which Great Danes shall be judged; (c) to do all in its power to protect and advance the interests of the breed by encouraging sportsmanlike competition at dog shows and obedience trials; (d) to conduct sanctioned and licensed specialty shows and obedience trials under the rules and Regulations of the American Kennel Club.

Our goals are to encourage and promote the breeding of pure - bred Golden Retrievers and to do all possible to bring their natural qualities to perfection; to urge members and breeders to accept the standard of the breed as approved by The American Kennel Club as the only standard of excellence by which Golden Retrievers shall be judged; to do all in our power to protect and advance the interests of the breed by encouraging sportsmanlike competition at dog shows, obedience trials, agility trials, hunt tests and field trials; and to conduct sanctioned and licensed specialty shows, obedience trials, agility trials, and field trials under the rules of The American Kennel Club.

«The Conduct and Judging of Spaniel Field Trials» - known as the «Blue Book» published by the ESSFTA, the detailed explanation of the rules of judging field Judging of Spaniel Field Trials» - known as the «Blue Book» published by the ESSFTA, the detailed explanation of the rules of judging field tTrials» - known as the «Blue Book» published by the ESSFTA, the detailed explanation of the rules of judging field judging field trialstrials.

Objectives of the Club To encourage and promote quality in the breeding of purebred Havanese and to do all possible to bring their natural qualities to perfection; To encourage the organization of independent local Havanese Specialty Clubs in those localities where there are sufficient fanciers of the breed to meet the requirements of The American Kennel Club; To urge members and breeders to accept the standard of the breed approved by The American Kennel Club as the only standard of excellence by which Havanese shall be judged; To do all in its power to protect and advance the interests of the breed and to encourage sportsmanlike competition at dog shows, obedience trials and agility events; To conduct sanctioned matches, specialty shows, obedience trials and agility trials under the rules of The American Kennel Club.

An Oregon judge ruled earlier this month that a complaint filed by more than a dozen young plaintiffs against the federal government — referred to by advocates as «the most important lawsuit on the planet right now» — can go to trial.

As a law student learning trial practice, and later as a young lawyer, I recall being instructed numerous times about «Rule 1,» i.e., «When the judge agrees with you, stop talking!&raquAs a law student learning trial practice, and later as a young lawyer, I recall being instructed numerous times about «Rule 1,» i.e., «When the judge agrees with you, stop talking!&raquas a young lawyer, I recall being instructed numerous times about «Rule 1,» i.e., «When the judge agrees with you, stop talking!»

Despite including the phrase «These rules apply to jurors the same as they apply to the parties and to me,» in an admonition to the jury about social media usage during trial, Texas Judge Michelle Slaughter disregarded her own warning while presiding over the hotly contested «boy in the box» case of 2015.

Yet, as we all know, your average case law update spends maybe two paragraphs describing the impact of the ruling and close to 10 or 12 paragraphs setting out the background facts, the arguments by counsel, the findings of the trial judge (with quotes) and the conclusions of any appellate decisions (also with quotes).

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.

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge's decision as to the result of the outcome, but the trial judge held that the cause of the litigation may have been the uncertainty of the donor's intention, but the object of that was uncertainty was his alleged inter vivos gift and not his will, and that accordingly the general rule had to prevail that costs should follow the event.

With respect to judicial interpretation, therefore, while the national legal traditions on which the articles and rules in question are modeled can provide some guidance, over-reliance on a narrow inquiry can lead to the perpetuation of the default position, according to which, as Byrne («The new public international lawyer and the hidden art of international criminal trial practice», 25 Connecticut Journal of Int» l Law (2005) 243) notes, some international judges «interpret legal norms through the lexicons of their respective traditions», rather than through a truly sui generis prism.

Despite the trial judge's ruling that Vander Wier had brutally assaulted T and violated his Charter rights, Crown counsel invited Officer Vander Wier to sit at the counsel table as assisting officer.

Only three days after Judge Kaplan's spectacular ruling in the Chevron / Ecuador case, notes Paul Barrett at Business Week, «a state appellate court in California upheld a trial judge's finding that what had been billed as a watershed liability verdict against Dole Food over pesticide use in Nicaragua was actually the product of a corrupt conspiracy by plaintiffs» lawyers.&rJudge Kaplan's spectacular ruling in the Chevron / Ecuador case, notes Paul Barrett at Business Week, «a state appellate court in California upheld a trial judge's finding that what had been billed as a watershed liability verdict against Dole Food over pesticide use in Nicaragua was actually the product of a corrupt conspiracy by plaintiffs» lawyers.&rjudge's finding that what had been billed as a watershed liability verdict against Dole Food over pesticide use in Nicaragua was actually the product of a corrupt conspiracy by plaintiffs» lawyers.»

Expert evidence supporting his injury claim was ruled inadmissible at trial, and the judge concluded the plaintiff had suffered no physical injuries as a result of the crash.

There's no need for anybody to be concerned that Ontario courts will ever be unclogged so long as each attempt by the Rules Committee to produce a mechanism for summary disposition of actions is frustrated by those judges who find issues warranting trials lurking under every rock.

As the defendants had already admitted liability before the trial started, the judge had ruled this information was irrelevant and inadmissible because it «may unduly arouse the jury's emotions of prejudice, hostility, of sympathy.»

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.

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).

In your first few years as a Judge Advocate, you might be fully lititgating a criminal trial (a.k.a court martial), defending the U.S. Government against a taxpayer whose house got damaged by falling aircraft parts, or briefing troops on «shoot / don't shoot rules of engagement» and laws of armed conflict.

In Corbett v Corbett [2003] All ER (D) 419 (Feb), which concerned a judgment summons, the husband appealed on the ground that the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted before the judge had breached his right to a fair trial under Art 6, as the form M17 had previously been ruled incompatible with the Convention.

The court therefore upheld the ruling of the trial judge, that the accused (who was aged 12) was precluded by s 34 from raising the issue of doli incapax as a defence.

When the wife of the accused was offered as the first defence witness, the Crown objected and the trial Judge «ruled that the appellant should testify first.»

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».

The trial Judge in Archer in asking that the accused follow the rule stated in Smith referred to it as the «settled practice» (transcript of evidence, p. 241).

In a recent decision, a three - judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) acted properly in issuing a final decision as to some — but not all — claims challenged in...

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 youth submitted that the trial judge erred (1) in leaving liability as a party (Criminal Code, s. 21 (1)-RRB- with the jury; (2) in admitting hearsay evidence under the co - conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule (and misdirected the jury on the application of that exception);...

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.»

Since this ruling, trial courts in the counties included within the Fourth District of Appeals (Palm Beach, Broward, St. Lucie, Martin, Indian River and Okeechobee) and some judges in Miami - Dade County have consistently denied motions to abate, based on Diaz, when the insured alleges a dispute as to scope.

While attending law school, she first - chaired felony jury trials to verdict as a Rule 16 Trial Attorney for the State's Attorney's Office of Prince George's County, Maryland and was a Judicial Intern for both the Honorable Wendell P. Gardner, Jr., Associate Judge for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and the Honorable Kiyo A. Matsumoto, United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of New York.

Additionally, if a trial judge rules this evidence admissible and you're convicted it is possible it could be construed as harmless error on appeal.

And that is so notwithstanding rules of law relating to appeals (e.g., Housen v. Nikolaisen) that trial judges are entitled to deference as to facts, mixed fact and law, discretionary matters and so on.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the evidence given at trial did not support the trial judge's classification of the Plaintiff as being a «crumbling skull Plaintiff», and further ruled that the trial judge did not adequately account for a reduction of damages in this regard.

The trial judge ruled: I will now focus on the main argument in this matter, which is the violation as a result of the statutorily compelled statements.

In October 2014, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled in State v. Paul that the 2012 law was not a «jury nullification law» and «construed RSA 519:23 - a as merely codifying existing law, rather than conferring on the jury a right to judge or nullify the law...» Trial judges were permitted to use a «Wentworth instruction» derived from State v. Wentworth, 118 N.H. 833 (1978)

As a judge ruled he was incompetent to stand trial, he was still waiting for his day in court.

The Rule clearly contemplates that the judge will make orders based on the information contained in the trial briefs, as supplemented by what is said at the TMC.

In my view in all likelihood I know as much about the reasonableness of the claimant's actions, given the evidence that has been presented, as a trial judge would, and so I am able to rule conclusively on that issue.

This does not offend the parol evidence rule because the goal of considering the factual matrix is (at para 81) «to deepen the trial judge's understanding of the mutual and objective intentions of the parties as expressed in the words of the contract.»