Sentences with phrase «by judicial enforcement»

Both authors emphasized the unintended consequences caused by judicial enforcement.

Not exact matches

An alternative version, put forward by state lawmakers, asked whether the Legislature should «provide for the establishment and support of effective free public schools without judicial enforcement.»

The statement added, «The EFCC boss expressed concern over the delay usually experienced in dispensing corruption cases and the conspiracy (in some cases) between the criminals and judicial workers / law enforcement agents to make violators of law escape justice, citing the case of a former governor of Adamawa State, Bala Ngilari, who was set free with the connivance of a prison warder and court registrar after being convicted by court.»

The situation is made worse by the epidemic, as described by Trump, of information leaking to the Press from the judicial and law enforcement agencies, from the intelligence community, from the legislature and from Trump's own administration.

Schneiderman said local law enforcement should honor requests by federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection officials to detain someone only in limited circumstances, such as when there is a signed judicienforcement should honor requests by federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection officials to detain someone only in limited circumstances, such as when there is a signed judiciEnforcement and Customs and Border Protection officials to detain someone only in limited circumstances, such as when there is a signed judicial warrant.

A licensee aggrieved by an order of the administrator under this section may obtain judicial review of the order and the administrator may obtain an order of the court for enforcement of its order in the circuit court.

We may disclose the information we collect from and about you as follows: (1) with Green Dot subsidiaries and affiliated companies; (2) to our third party service providers that provide business, professional or technical support functions for us; (3) as necessary if we believe that there has been a violation of the Site Terms of Use or of our rights or the rights of any third party; (4) to respond to judicial process or provide information to law enforcement or regulatory agencies or in connection with an investigation on matters related to public safety, as permitted by law, or otherwise as required by law; and (5) as described to you at the point of collection.

A veterinarian who is licensed in another state, and who is in good standing in such state, providing services directly in connection with an investigation by law enforcement of an alleged violation of federal or state animal fighting or animal cruelty laws, within the scope of the investigation and / or any related judicial proceedings, subject to the following requirements: (a) an official invitation has been extended to the veterinarian for a specified period of time by the law enforcement authority with jurisdiction over the investigation; and (b) such law enforcement authority determines that the veterinarian possesses skills, training, or experience necessary and relevant to such investigation of alleged incidents of animal fighting or animal cruelty.

A technician who is licensed in another state, and who is in good standing in such state, providing veterinary technology services otherwise permissible pursuant to this article directly in connection with an investigation by law enforcement of an alleged violation of federal or state animal fighting or animal cruelty laws, within the scope of the investigation and / or any related judicial proceedings, subject to the following requirements: (a) an official invitation has been extended to the technician for a specified period of time by the law enforcement authority with jurisdiction over the investigation; and (b) such law enforcement authority determines that the technician possesses skills, training, or experience necessary and relevant to such investigation of alleged incidents of animal fighting or animal cruelty.

The future of the EPSR depends largely on how it will be treated by the stakeholders, and here the judicial arenas should be activated if there is no meaningful enforcement actions following from the EU political actors and the member states.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Alaska injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

Petitioners have placed primary reliance on their contentions, first raised in the state courts, that judicial enforcement of the restrictive agreements in these cases has violated rights guaranteed to petitioners by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution and Acts of Congress passed pursuant to that Amendment.

Justice Moldaver then turns to what is described as practical considerations for law enforcement and the administration of justice, at paras. 183 - 6, suggesting that (a) the disclosure of text messages received by a complainant could be challenged by a sender who is alleged to have abused the complainant and thus exposes vulnerable complainants such as children, people with mental disabilities and the elderly (b) the increased need for warrants could strain police and judicial resources in an overburdened criminal justice system and (c) at the trial stage, these repercussions could complicate and prolong proceedings where defendants have standing to challenge searches conducted against collateral targets in large prosecutions.

Nothing in the opinion of this Court, therefore, may properly be regarded as an adjudication on the merits of the constitutional issues presented by these cases, which raise the question of the validity not of the private agreements as such, but of the judicial enforcement of those agreements.

In his short judgment, Justice Steel also agreed that a judgment issued by the DIFC Courts on recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment «is in fact a domestic judgment and accordingly falls within the scope of Article 7 (2) of the Judicial Authority Law.»

[7] While excluding judicial decisions and arbitral awards will limit the number of parties served by the instrument, the working group considered it best to avoid «overlap» with other conventions and minimize confusion among enforcement authorities over which instrument applies, although the final wording of this provision remains to be determined.

Article 7 (2) of the Judicial Authority Law provides for the enforcement outside the DIFC of «judgments, decisions and orders rendered by the [DIFC] Courts and the Arbitral Awards ratified by the [DIFC] Courts».

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Georgia injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

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.

Nonetheless, she envisages less governance problems in the case of EU competition law enforcement by the CJEU and national courts, since «theories of integrity in judicial reasoning suggest deeply embedded tendencies to prefer solutions that are coherent with the legal system at issue, and -LRB-...) its underlying constitutional and moral values.»

Unfortunately, the Court's mis - direction on the judicial reasoning protecting private life rights and sexual identity started by Dudgeon, is a shortcoming of the judgment, as the Court fails to engage with the impact that mere criminalisation has on gay and lesbian individuals, even without enforcement.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Tennessee injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Missouri injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a California injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

She was heavily involved in the case before the election commissioner to overturn the result of the mayoral election in Tower Hamlets in May 2014, including the enforcement of costs orders and resistance to an application by the ousted mayor for judicial review.

A. 20 In effect, this means that whilst decisions of the DSB create an obligation on the part of the losing party to comply with WTO rules, enforcement can be achieved by various means — including amicable settlement, compensation, or the suspension of trade concessions.101 Indeed, it was for this reason that the CJEU found in the case of Portugal v Council that a DSB decision did not oblige the losing party to achieve full implementation of its recommendations, where the possibility of temporary compensation or retaliatory measures remained available.102 In other words, the outcome was prescribed, but not the means.103 This contrasts with the position under EU law, where there is a right to an effective remedy from a judicial body.

(3) The enforcement of the clause would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which the suit is brought, declared by statute or judicial decision.

The symposium, sponsored by the Center for Advanced Legal Studies and the Flaschner Judicial Institute, seeks to educate attorneys, judges, and law enforcement officers about the vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system that make the criminal conviction of wholly innocent persons possible.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a North Carolina injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

Unless the parties agree otherwise, the parties, the arbitrator and JW will treat the arbitral proceedings, any related disclosures and / or discovery, and the decisions of the arbitrator, as confidential, except in connection with judicial proceedings ancillary to the arbitration, such as a judicial challenge to, or enforcement of, an award, or unless otherwise required by law or to protect a legal right of a party.

The legislation, led by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, improves judicial discretion at sentencing for low level offenders and helps inmates successfully reenter society, while tightening penalties for violent criminals and preserving key prosecutorial tools for law enforcement.

Rigorous enforcement of this rule will not only protect respondents from incurring unrecoverable costs, but should positively contribute to access to justice by freeing up judicial and administrative resources that are so acutely needed to implement the «culture shift» mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Legalize and Regulate Marijuana WHEREAS, despite almost a century of prohibition, millions of Canadians today regularly consume marijuana and other cannabis products; WHEREAS the failed prohibition of marijuana has exhausted countless billions of dollars spent on ineffective or incomplete enforcement and has resulted in unnecessarily dangerous and expensive congestion in our judicial system; WHEREAS various marijuana decriminalization or legalization policy prescriptions have been recommended by the 1969 - 72 Commission of Enquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, the 2002 Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, and the 2002 House of Commons Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs; WHEREAS the legal status quo for the criminal regulation of marijuana continues to endanger Canadians by generating significant resources for gang - related violent criminal activity and weapons smuggling — a reality which could be very easily confronted by the regulation and legitimization of Canada's marijuana industry; BE IT RESOLVED that a new Liberal government will legalize marijuana and ensure the regulation and taxation of its production, distribution, and use, while enacting strict penalties for illegal trafficking, illegal importation and exportation, and impaired driving; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a new Liberal government will invest significant resources in prevention and education programs designed to promote awareness of the health risks and consequences of marijuana use and dependency, especially amongst youth; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a new Liberal government will extend amnesty to all Canadians previously convicted of simple and minimal marijuana possession, and ensure the elimination of all criminal records related thereto; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a new Liberal government will work with the provinces and local governments of Canada on a coordinated regulatory approach to marijuana which maintains significant federal responsibility for marijuana control while respecting provincial health jurisdiction and particular regional concerns and practices.

Given the research on the impacts of judicial, the inability of those under 18 and of the poor to purchase privacy in their judicial records, and the disproportional marijuana enforcement experienced by marginalized groups, it is likely that ticketing provisions in Bill C - 45 will be found to violate the Charter.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a foreign injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

Comment: Many commenters argued that no disclosures of protected health information should be made to law enforcement (absent authorization) without a warrant issued by a judicial officer after a finding of probable cause.

In some instances, disclosure of protected health information to law enforcement officials will be compelled by other law, for example, by compulsory judicial process or compulsory reporting laws (such as laws requiring reporting of wounds from violent crimes, suspected child abuse, or suspected theft of controlled substances).

Secondly, a lack of enforcement mechanisms by no means indicates a failure of judicial or arbitral dispute settlement.

The new § 164.512 includes paragraphs on: Uses and disclosures required by law; uses and disclosures for public health activities; disclosures about victims of abuse, neglect, or domestic violence; uses and disclosures for health oversight activities; disclosures for judicial and administrative proceedings; disclosures for law enforcement purposes; uses and disclosures about decedents; uses and disclosures for cadaveric donation of organs, eyes, or tissues; uses and disclosures for research purposes; uses and disclosures to avert a serious threat to health or safety (which we had called «emergency circumstances» in the NPRM); uses and disclosures for specialized government functions (referred to as «specialized classes» in the NPRM); and disclosures to comply with workers» compensation laws.

We note that concerns about the constitutionality of the filing... of judgments from nations that do not adhere to basic principles of due process of law may be addressed by amending the FCMJRA to require prior judicial approval of judgments of foreign countries by way of motion or a separate enforcement proceeding.

The objective of the Forum is to promote the enforcement of national, European and international environmental law by contributing to a better knowledge by judges of environmental law, by exchanging judicial decisions and by sharing experience in the area of training in environmental law.

The only exception is where disclosure is required by a court, necessary in connection with a judicial challenge or enforcement of an award or otherwise required by law.

An enforcement guideline is not the same as a judicial guideline: by making an enforcement guideline in the name of the Commission, as opposed to the head of enforcement, the CRTC is at peril of compromising its judicial independence.

Though we make every effort to preserve user privacy, we may need to disclose personal information when required by law wherein we have a good - faith belief that such action is necessary to comply with an appropriate law enforcement investigation, current judicial proceeding, a court order, or legal process served on our website, or as required by law.

The following is a sampling in the areas of Higher Education, Workplace, Healthcare, Judicial, Lawyers and Related Professionals, Mediators and ADR Professionals, Therapists and Law Enforcement (listed by category):

Enforcement: If a member fails to comply with an award or the terms of a mediated settlement agreement, the recipient to whom the award has been rendered by the arbitration panel or the beneficiary of a settlement agreement reached by the parties in mediation, shall be advised by the panel to seek judicial enforcement and request reimbursement of all legal costs incurred in seeking such eEnforcement: If a member fails to comply with an award or the terms of a mediated settlement agreement, the recipient to whom the award has been rendered by the arbitration panel or the beneficiary of a settlement agreement reached by the parties in mediation, shall be advised by the panel to seek judicial enforcement and request reimbursement of all legal costs incurred in seeking such eenforcement and request reimbursement of all legal costs incurred in seeking such enforcementenforcement.