Sentences with phrase «case as a trial judge»

This offer was declined and was fatal to the plaintiff's case as the trial judge found this to be a failure to mitigate.

Not exact matches

NEW YORK, April 17 - The judge overseeing the $ 1 billion fraud case of defunct New York hedge fund firm Platinum Partners has ordered a separate trial for a defendant planning to argue that Platinum Chief Investment Officer Mark Nordlicht and other defendants were guilty as charged.

NEW YORK, April 17 (Reuters)- The judge overseeing the $ 1 billion fraud case of defunct New York hedge fund firm Platinum Partners has ordered a separate trial for a defendant planning to argue that Platinum Chief Investment Officer Mark Nordlicht and other defendants were guilty as charged.

Judge Santiarto said the trial had been a purely criminal one as the court disagreed that there were political aspects to the case.

On this basis the trial judge concluded that (para 298) «if Franklins was in the relevant market with Metcash (as the Commission clearly contended), it must be the case that the major supermarket chains, which his Honour found to be a closer competitive constraint than Franklins, must be included in that market.»

Recent Spanish media reports claiming Real Madrid star Cristiano Ronaldo has been negotiating a deal to avoid prison due to his tax arrears are «just noise and smoke» rising now as the judge may be about to move the case forward to trial, a source at the Spanish tax authority has told ESPN FC.

Developer Louis Ciminelli last month was ordered by a federal judge to surrender a firearm purchased and registered under his wife's name as he faces trial in a bid rigging and bribery case.

Buffalo developer Louis Ciminelli last month was ordered by a federal judge to surrender a firearm purchased and registered under his wife's name as he faces trial in a bid rigging and bribery case.

«The criminal assault trial of Kevin S. Parker, a state senator from central Brooklyn, was thrown into turmoil on Thursday, as a judge granted the Brooklyn district attorney's office's request to have two special prosecutors appointed — one who would take over the case, and another who would investigate possible improprieties by an assistant district attorney.

Updated 3:26 p.m. The criminal assault trial of Kevin S. Parker, a state senator from central Brooklyn, was thrown into turmoil on Thursday, as a judge granted the Brooklyn district attorney's office's request to have two special prosecutors appointed — one who would take over the case, and another who would investigate possible improprieties by an assistant district attorney not directly involved in the proceeding.

The trial judge also found that the case against the accused person was established by Popoola's evidence which was corroborated by the evidence of his brother who handed over the ransom to the accused person and identified them as recipients.

He and his lawyers are expected to provide details of their appeal of the case as well as ask the trial judge to override the jury's conclusions and retroactively acquit Silver.

In my assessment, the judiciary has done all anyone can reasonably expect in supporting the current fight against corruption - anti-corruption cases have moved very fast to trial; and judges have imposed especially severe and onerous terms on accused persons brought before them for corrupt acts, with bail terms typically including deposit of their international passports, sureties and bail bonds with assets equivalent to the amount allegedly embezzled; and very high qualifications for standing as surety.

The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta, had re-assigned the case to Justice Quadri when Justice Ademola was on suspension as a result of the joint trial.

Acting U.S. Attorney Joon Kim, the head of the federal prosecutor's office in Manhattan, recently told the judge that breaking the case into two trials is fair in order to accommodate scheduling conflicts for defense lawyers as well as Ciminelli's health issues.

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.

A review of those cases has concluded that «Most trial judges have heeded the Supreme Court's admonition to act as gatekeepers, and their review of admissibility is generally more detailed and in depth than in pre-Daubert cases» (Bert Black.

In this case, subjects had to judge others» actions, as if they were jury members in a trial.

1973: The espionage trial of Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo in the «Pentagon Papers» case came to an end as Judge William M. Byrne dismissed all charges, citing government misconduct.

Nearly two years after the trial in Vergara v. California first began, the case is set to move forward as judges from a state appeals court hear arguments Feb. 25.

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.

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.

But federal judges have so far upheld the plaintiffs» right to a hearing, which means the case could come to trial as early as November.

As indicated by the trial judge this is a sad case and the result of the medical treatment has been a very unfortunate and unhappy one for the plaintiff.

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 both cases, at first instance, the trial judge determined that the employer was not liable, as the assaulting employee had been acting outside the scope of his employment.

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.

The video will serve as the official trial court record unless the judge specifically orders a paper transcript in a case.

The consequence to our justice system will be increased delays and expenditures as judges, crowns and duty counsel struggle to provide fair trials in complex cases where the stakes are high to self - represented individuals.

As the pencil stab count has now reached three, the judge in the murder case understandably rolled out enhanced security measures for Monson's trial, which got under way Thursday.

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).

Accused went to cottage of JC with whom she previously cohabited — Accused found JC with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against sentence was allowed — Trial judge erred in concluding that discharge was not appropriate in circumstances, especially given conclusion that accused did not deliberately attempt to injure victim — Trial judge found that there was no need for either specific deterrence or general deterrence; prime concern was need for denunciation of her conduct — Section 730 of Criminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public interest.

In the case of R. v. Downey, the trial judge found that the accused's suspicion had been aroused to the point that there was a need for inquiry, but she deliberately did not inquire so as not to learn the truth.

[19] Without endorsing all of the factors relied on by the trial judge as constituting «sufficient reason» in this case, I am satisfied that there may be circumstances which may constitute sufficient reason for bringing an action in the Supreme Court, thereby triggering its costs provisions, despite the fact that it is apparent from the outset that the award will fall within the monetary jurisdiction of the Provincial Court.

Both the trial judge and the Court of Appeal held that the case was adversarial, and was not being brought for the benefit of or in the interests of the plan as a whole, but for the particular class of plan members representative by the plaintiffs.

75 The jurisprudence relating to sentence reduction as a Charter remedy has recently been reviewed by the Supreme Court in R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6 (S.C.C.), decided after this case was argued before the trial judge.

As a result, the trial judge found a lack of evidence to support the defendants» case.

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.»

Binding arbitration is held either before one arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators in larger cases, such as where a product defect may have been a factor in the car accident, and the process more like a trial with the arbitrators generally retired judges.

However, in my respectful view, the trial judge's reasons reveal a failure to consider significant factors that, as I will explain, have been identified in the jurisprudence as having a direct bearing upon whether to grant a stay in cases of this kind.

Because of how the principle of judicial independence is interpreted by courts, the original trial judge in this case could not be asked why it had taken 9 months to reach a verdict, and could not be questioned whether the delay was due to the complexity of the case, the judge's workload, or other personal reasons, such as illness.

As indicated, the trial judge settled upon the former on the basis that no evidence was negatively affected, and, weighing the seriousness of the crime for which T was convicted against the seriousness of the breach, he found that this was not one of those «clearest of cases» where a stay should be granted.

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 decision this week by a federal judge in Minnesota to order a new trial in the recording industry's case against Jammie Thomas was seen by many as a victory for users of peer - to - peer networks.

In reviewing the trial judge's order, the Court of Appeals took offense at the comment, feeling that the trial court had unfairly lashed out at the appellate judges because precedent precluded the judge from resolving the case as he saw fit.

Judges in two Iowa counties cited the admission as grounds for granting new trials in two cases of men locked up in part based on Belanger's opinion that they were dangerous.

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.

While leaving detailed practical guidance for employees to the actual prosecuting agencies, the court expressed the expectation that future difficulties should be avoided by early disclosure from jurors of their relevant professional involvement with the criminal justice system, and careful enquiry by the trial judge as to the significance of this in each case.

In addition, they suggest the court should assign a trial judge to the case at least 60 days in advance of the first day of trial who should then conduct a trial management conference as soon as possible.

Although in this case the trial judge did not find the mandatory minimum to be grossly disproportionate to the accused, a finding the Court upheld as deserving deference, the Court was forced to contemplate reasonably foreseeable situations where it would be grossly disproportionate.