Sentences with phrase «bring to the court since»

«This is something I know Scott has wanted to bring to the court since he became clerk» in 2013, Hawthorne says.

Not exact matches

Even though Duterte said he would not deviate from the July court ruling and that he would not bring up the issue during his visit, a Philippine official did tell Reuters that he intended to raise the issue of Filipino fishermen, who had been denied access to waters around Scarborough since 2012, when China seized the shoal.

According to the Supreme court's recent decision regarding prop 8 it does not matter since is we do not have standing to bring a case against an administration for failure to enforce laws.

Mr. Simspon Kent who has been charged with murder, was brought before the court for the first time since his arrest to begin extradition processes.

Metuh was brought in to court in handcuffs from Kuje prisons where he had been remanded since last week.

While stating his objection to the protection offered the accused, Adesiyan said since the court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case, there was no point bringing the issue up during the five minute period that the sitting lasted.

Since the first widely publicized case in which a claim of educational malpractice was made — a 1976 California suit brought by a high - school graduate who charged he was illiterate — state courts, including New York's, have continued to turn...

New Funding Pressures Next month the state Supreme Judicial Court will review the findings of a Superior Court judge who ruled in May that state funding for education is inadequate in poor districts despite the billions of dollar spent since 1993 on bringing struggling school districts up to a reasonable foundation budget.

A last - minute problem arose in July 1998 when a Cologne court, responding to a case brought by the publisher Burda, ordered Ford to avoid the name «Focus» for the cars in the German market since the name was already taken by one of its magazines (Focus).

No copier with a phony copyright claim has dared to bring a case to court in the US since Bridgeman v. Corel.

Apple has always contended that being brought to court on antitrust charges was somewhat ridiculous, since its entry into the market helped to ease off Amazon's fast - developing stranglehold on the market.

Since the Court speaks throughout of a «Peña - García family» that applies for benefits and brings an action before the court, it is highly remarkable that the possible eligibility of father Peña to social benefits as a family member of a worker under article 24 of the Directive (mother García, after all, did receive social assistance) is not addreCourt speaks throughout of a «Peña - García family» that applies for benefits and brings an action before the court, it is highly remarkable that the possible eligibility of father Peña to social benefits as a family member of a worker under article 24 of the Directive (mother García, after all, did receive social assistance) is not addrecourt, it is highly remarkable that the possible eligibility of father Peña to social benefits as a family member of a worker under article 24 of the Directive (mother García, after all, did receive social assistance) is not addressed.

Furthermore, since foreign direct investment (FDI) falls under exclusive EU competence (Article 207 (1) TFEU), the CJEU has the power to decide on the domestic effects of the investment protection provisions of EU international agreements (Slovak Brown Bear, paras. 30 - 32; but we need to wait also for Opinion 2/15, EU - Singapore), even if a case is brought against a Member State measure before a Member State court.

The Court found that he was not precluded from requesting a preliminary ruling since it was «not evidently... beyond doubt» that Mr Pringle would have had standing to bring an action under Article 263

The distinction between the varying approaches may be more apparent than real, and in many cases may lead to the same outcome particularly since not all courts distinguish between them and / or refer to them simultaneously.903 Of the few decisions where a foreign award has been refused enforcement pursuant to the second alternative of article V (1)(d), the party opposing enforcement brought evidence of fundamental or unjustifiable procedural defects that one could consider would have met the criteria of both approaches.

The CJEU concluded that the sanction for a breach of the EU Courts» obligation to adjudicate cases within a reasonable time must be an action for damages brought before the General Court since such an action constitutes an effective remedy (para 94).

The High Court has dismissed a legal challenge brought by NGOs against the UK government's licensing of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which has been involved in military conflict in Yemen since 2015.

The High Court did not accept the tribunal's characterization of the secondary right as part of the «bundle of rights» created by the mining leases, since the right to bring a claim before the SADC Tribunal had been «conferred» by the SADC Treaty (in 1992), after the original investments were made (in 1988) and therefore could not be seen as «sufficiently connected» or even «deriving from» the mining leases.

ILEX fellows have been eligible to apply for selected judicial roles since November 2008, as a result of changes brought about by the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

It is now 10 years since the widow of Mr McTear brought Imperial Tobacco to court to defend itself against allegations of personal injury caused by the company's tobacco products.

«The appellant maintains that, by its nature, a tax on criminal defence legal fees will, at some level, be prohibitive or at the very least act as an impediment to or will interfere with the right to counsel since the additional cost of the tax to an accused will interfere with the financial resources available to mount a defence to the charges brought against him or her,» wrote Tax Court of Canada Justice Brent Paris, summing up the firm's case.

50 In those circumstances, it is apparent that there is no risk of conflicting decisions as mentioned in paragraph 47 above, since the provisional decision taken by the court before which the interim proceedings have been brought will not in any way prejudice the decision to be taken on the substance by the court having jurisdiction under Article 22 (4) of Regulation No 44/2001.

When the use of Google to conduct research on potential jurors was brought to the attention of the trial judge, the court prohibited the research because no advance notice had been given and the judge wanted to create an «even playing field,» since the defendant's counsel was not conducting the same research.

In RFF, the Court ruled that an «exception to the exception» applied, since the «legal advice [was being] procured «at the trustee's own expense and for his own protection,» given that the «trustee is defending himself against the threat of litigation brought by the beneficiary.»

We need your firm to issue demand notice when require or possible litigation and to bring actions in court against any customers now and in our future supplied since there is an agreement in place.

Western Australia's Court of Appeal in its decision AME Hospitals PTY, Limited v. Dixon [2015] WASCA 63, delivered on 27 March 2015, confirmed, particularly relevantly in the medical negligence claims area, significant scope for persons to bring claim outside the basic 3 - year time limit for such claims arising since November 2005 and the introduction of the Limitation Act 2005.

Since 1938, when Sutherland's founding partner Judge Elbert P Tuttle argued in the US Supreme Court to establish a Sixth Amendment right to counsel in criminal cases (Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 US 458), our lawyers have been lead appellate counsel both in cases we have tried and in cases brought to us by other counsel after trial.

First, she argued it was a mistake for the lower court to grant summary judgment on her premises liability theory, since a gun was brought to a place where guests were imbibing alcohol.

Justice Skarica declined to exercise this «forum of necessity» or «forum of last resort» exception, since the plaintiff had the opportunity to bring a simultaneous claim in the New York courts before the limitation period expired, as well as an opportunity to have this court's jurisdiction determined prior to the expiry of the New York limitation period, but the plaintiff elected not to do so.

The Court of First Instance, Lisbon (Varas Civeis de Lisboa) referred the question for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU as a result of an action against the Portuguese State brought by the claimants since the Portuguese Supreme Court deemed the legal issue in question to be sufficiently clear and it decided that there was no need to refer the matter to the CJEU even though it was a court of last instCourt of First Instance, Lisbon (Varas Civeis de Lisboa) referred the question for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU as a result of an action against the Portuguese State brought by the claimants since the Portuguese Supreme Court deemed the legal issue in question to be sufficiently clear and it decided that there was no need to refer the matter to the CJEU even though it was a court of last instCourt deemed the legal issue in question to be sufficiently clear and it decided that there was no need to refer the matter to the CJEU even though it was a court of last instcourt of last instance.

The trial court in the subsequent case sustained a demurrer to the putative class action complaint, holding that it lacked «subject matter jurisdiction» since La Canoas failed to bring a motion in the prior case.

Having found the wife to lack the capacity to bring the equalization claim, the court added that the Settlement itself was not subject to being undone, since there was no evidence of duress.

In Mannarino v The Estate of Jane Brown, the Superior Court declined to take jurisdiction over a claim involving a motor vehicle accident that took place in New York, even though the limitation period for bringing a claim in New York had since passed.

In a number of decisions since the 1960s, the Court of Appeal indicated that it was willing to review decisions not to bring prosecutions if the victim could establish that the decision in question was unreasonable (Ashworth, pp. 188 — 189, citing cases).

«It does appear, at least from the cases brought to my attention, that since Pushpanathan, courts at all levels in Ontario have generally accepted the proposition that «heroin is the worst of the worst,»» wrote Spies.

This is a matter of some detached amusement to Slaw since a Google Search for Justice Marshall Rothstein brings up the Slaw website higher than the Supreme Court of Canada's or the Federal Court pages.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Provincial Court of British Columbia have offered e-filing since June 2007, bringing today's move up to all three levels of court in the provCourt of British Columbia and the Provincial Court of British Columbia have offered e-filing since June 2007, bringing today's move up to all three levels of court in the provCourt of British Columbia have offered e-filing since June 2007, bringing today's move up to all three levels of court in the provcourt in the province.

Since these numbers were first brought to my attention last week, I've been thinking hard about what's needed to bring about change and where action can be taken to support greater gender parity on the bench in the federal courts.

By contrast, the Supreme Court held that «the fall in the number of claims since 2013 was so sharp, so substantial and so sustained as to warrant the conclusion that a significant number of people who would otherwise have brought claims have found the fees to be unaffordable».

The Court was not satisfied that this presented any ambiguity and, accordingly, found that the insurer was not under any obligation to defend Precision in respect of the claims brought by its neighbours since those claims would never be covered under Precision's liability policy.

During the 2008 - 09 reporting period, 12 determinations of native title were made by the Federal Court, bringing the total number of determinations since the Native Title Act began to 121.

The Arkansas Safe Babies Court Team, which began in the 10th and 11th Division Circuit Courts in Pulaski County and has since expanded to additional areas, exemplifies this vision by bringing together a team of more than 50 members from 12 different disciplines to provide comprehensive, developmentally appropriate support to infants and toddlers in the child welfare system.

An Ohio court has considered whether a commercial broker could assign its right to bring a commission lawsuit, since Ohio law requires that the party bringing the commission lawsuit must have an Ohio broker's license.