Sentences with phrase «bright line rules in»

There aren't bright line rules in the area of fair use (which is the core issue - you are clearly copying a work that has copyright protected portions, at least - the question is whether fair use provides a defense and whether some portions are not copyright protected).

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.»

Not exact matches

To date, there has not been a bright line rule with regards to parodies in the adult context.

He pointed to a sentence later in the same paragraph that says, «if a broadband provider degraded the delivery of a particular application (e.g., a disfavored VoIP service) or class of application (e.g., all VoIP applications), it would violate the bright - line no - throttling rule.»

The think the no bright lipstick rule is rooted in the problem of lipstick bleeding into your facial lines.

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.»

The card game, Vaxcards, works along very similar lines to other popular games of its type, using bright cartoon illustrations and a simple set of rules in the hope of encouraging kids to use them in the playground.

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&rarules 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&raRules: 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».

The States, however, submit that the comprehensive bright line approach reflected in the proposed rules would substantially aid law enforcement agencies in addressing the harms that have been caused to consumers by unscrupulous practices in the debt relief industry.

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.

Requiring a licensee to acknowledge, for example, that he has an obligation not to represent two clients whose legal interests are directly adverse, even in an unrelated matter, helps ensure that licensee remembers that the bright line rule exists.

[37] Finally, the bright line rule does not apply in circumstances where it is unreasonable for a client to expect that its law firm will not act against it in unrelated matters.

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. Arizona.

If the answer is yes, simultaneously acting for and against a client in legal matters will generally result in a breach of the bright line rule, and the law firm can not accept the new retainer unless the clients involved grant their informed consent.

The case reopened the «bright - line rule» and the so - called «professional litigant exception,» formulated by former Justice Ian Binnie in R. v. Neil, and re-affirmed in Strother v. 3464920 Canada Inc..

The bright - line rule, established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, comes into play whenever there's concurrent representation, adds Cohn.

Wife seems to ask this Court to create a rule that income should never be imputed on the basis of eligibility for government benefits; however, a bright - line rule is not only unnecessary in light of existing case law, but also inadvisable.

Whereas there might (in the future) be a bright - line rule for the commercial, or profit - making nature of a given website (e.g. income from advertisement, even if marginal, main economic activities, etc.), the criterion that pertains to the knowledge (of the lack of consent of the right holder) of the non-commercial user might prove much more problematic.

Even in the context of zoning, which has purportedly been the subject of a «bright line rule,» this Court has not been able to agree on which cases require an application...

In light of that fact, and the absence of any bright line rule regarding NJLAD's applicability to out - of - state employees, you may want to consider executing, where available by law, a written agreement with your non-resident telecommuters delineating which state's law applies in the event of a legal dispute («choice of law» clause), and in which court those disputes are to be filed («forum selection» clauseIn light of that fact, and the absence of any bright line rule regarding NJLAD's applicability to out - of - state employees, you may want to consider executing, where available by law, a written agreement with your non-resident telecommuters delineating which state's law applies in the event of a legal dispute («choice of law» clause), and in which court those disputes are to be filed («forum selection» clausein the event of a legal dispute («choice of law» clause), and in which court those disputes are to be filed («forum selection» clausein which court those disputes are to be filed («forum selection» clause).

Eric Goldman, a respected Santa Clara University law professor, told Courthouse News Service that Forrest's ruling was «shocking» and «far reaching,» noting in a blog post that the judge appeared to «eliminate -LSB--RSB- a bright - line rule that many internet actors rely upon.»

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.

This is one of those decisions that while creating a bright line rule, may have little application in the future.

We urged the bright line rule that the Court adopted in its holding today — «Amici respectfully submit that the Court should affirm the result reached by the Second Circuit and establish a bright line rule limiting the application of rule 10 (b) to securities bought or sold in the United States.»

And the future of Blakely — not just in California, but throughout the nation — may turn ultimately on what Justices Alito and Roberts think about bright - line rules in this context.

Not surprisingly, both top - side briefs in Cunningham assert and stress that the Apprendi - Blakely rule draws a bright line.

This Massachusetts bright - line rule will likely reduce litigation over whether the duty to defend includes the duty to prosecute a counterclaim, and an insured in Massachusetts now knows that, if it wants its insurer to prosecute and fund the prosecution of a counterclaim, it should probably negotiate for that specific term in its policy.

The rules in the Federation's Model Code of Professional Conduct governing conflicts of interest reflect the bright line rule and are consistent with the Court's decision.

The Court did identify three limitations on the scope of the bright line rule: it applies only where the immediate legal interests of the clients are directly adverse; it can not be used tactically; and it does not apply in situations in which it would be unreasonable for a client to expect that a law firm will not act against it in unrelated matters.

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.

The Court confirmed the «bright line rule» established in the case of R. v. Neil that a lawyer may not concurrently represent clients whose legal interests are directly adverse without first obtaining their consent.

In McKercher, CNR submitted that the «bright - line» rule was bright and plain.

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.

The Court in McKercher made clear that lawyers had to apply both the «bright line» rule and the «substantial risk» [ii] principle in clearing conflicts involving current clients.

The Court observed, «The main area of application of the bright line rule is in civil and criminal proceedings».

The bright - line rules created in Jordan then created a presumptive ceiling of 18 months for provincial courts, and 30 months for superior courts (or those tried in provincial courts after a preliminary inquiry).

Neither conception of the «bright line» rule urged on the Court «won» or «lost» in McKercher.

[26] In cases where the bright line rule does not apply, the court must then ask whether the concurrent representation of clients creates a substantial risk that the lawyer's representation of the client would be materially and adversely affected.

The «bright line» rule does not apply in unrelated matters where «it is unreasonable for a client to expect that its law firm will not act against it».

In matters involving another current client, lawyers should take care to consider not only whether the bright line rule applies but whether there is a substantial risk of impairment.

Accordingly, the main area of application of the bright line rule is in civil and criminal proceedings.

Writing for a unanimous court, McLachlin CJC concluded, among other things, that the situation «fell squarely within the scope of the bright line rule» and remitted the matter back to the lower court for redetermination in accordance with the Court's reasons.

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»

The bright - line test, or the «unrelated matters rule» affirmed in both of these cases gave conflicts of interest rules a broad mandate of application.

C.A., September 28, 2011)(34545) July 5, 2013 The «bright line rule» is engaged when two separate clients are adverse in legal interests.

The top court has limited the scope of the bright - line rule by making it clear that it only applies where «the immediate legal interests of clients are directly adverse in the matters on which the lawyer is acting.»

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.

A second issue with the Court's judgment that may be more significant is its suggestion that the bright line rule and the substantial risk principle are distinct tests for identifying the existence of a conflict of interest, with the substantial risk principle applying in circumstances where the bright line rule has not been satisfied.

The bright line rule provides that, absent client consent, 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» (Neil at para 29, emphasis in original).

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.