Sentences with phrase «cases in a court of law»

He was given no opportunity to remedy his violation or to present his case in a court of law, yet his personal property was seized.

I could build a strong case in a court of law that Earth Defense Force 2017 is made from the stuff of bad games.

Nobody said the process of getting to the truth would be easy; suppressing it may calm your nerves but certainly won't help you win cases in a court of law.

equipped to handle a legal case in a court of law unless you are an experienced lawyer.

For this, you require a personal injury lawyer who can help you present your case in the court of law to get you compensation and justice you deserve.

A lawyer is an individual who represents a client in a criminal or a civil case in the court of law.

Not exact matches

«There are going to be tough questions on both sides, questions the Supreme Court has not directly answered before in cases, that this court may not hesitate to stay clear of,» says Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at University of California, Los AngCourt has not directly answered before in cases, that this court may not hesitate to stay clear of,» says Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at University of California, Los Angcourt may not hesitate to stay clear of,» says Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at University of California, Los Angeles.

«On a general level, there can be practical barriers to pursuit of a criminal case, such as the victim company's fear of embarrassment, reputational damage, or the perceived risk — real or not — that their trade secrets will be exposed in a court proceeding,» said Brooke French, shareholder at law firm Carlton Fields.

The law also requires a civilian review when commanders decline to prosecute, requires dishonourable discharge or dismissal for those convicted, eliminate the statute of limitations for courts - martial in rape and sexual assault cases and criminalizes retaliation against victims who report an assault.

In a one - sentence order, the court said it would decide a case brought by conservative challengers of the law.

7th US Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Amy Coney Barrett, a Notre Dame law professor, was questioned intensely about her Catholic faith as a result of past writings expressing her beliefs on whether Catholic judges should recuse themselves from death - penalty cases if they believed they would be unable to impartially uphold the law, writing that — in limited situations — judges should step back in cases that conflict with their personal conscience.

In a recent court case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Department of Justice is prohibited from using federal funds to prosecute businesses who operate within state laws regarding medical marijcourt case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Department of Justice is prohibited from using federal funds to prosecute businesses who operate within state laws regarding medical marijCourt of Appeals ruled that the Department of Justice is prohibited from using federal funds to prosecute businesses who operate within state laws regarding medical marijuana.

The judicial system does not track civil cases filed in circuit court by the section of law cited, but he does not remember hearing of any lawsuit based on the disparagement law being filed in circuit court anywhere in South Dakota.

(Chicago constructed this story from thousands of pages of federal court records, police reports, and court testimony from related cases, as well as from official government reports and dozens of interviews with federal and local law enforcement officials and attorneys for some of the defendants; through a spokesman, prosecutors in the Zambada case declined comment.)

Last month, the defendants filed a document stamped the «Hawaiian Judiciary Court of the Sovereign,» saying the judge in the Coco Palms case needs to surrender to law enforcement or face «immediate arrest.»

Others, including some gun control and mental health advocates, point to the increasing number of states that allow law enforcement officers or, in some cases, family members or others to petition a court to temporarily take guns from people who pose a danger to themselves or others.

The legal basis for deriving implied powers from the penumbra of other express powers is best seen in Justice Douglas classic opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut.5 In the Griswold case, the United States Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptioin Justice Douglas classic opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut.5 In the Griswold case, the United States Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptioin Griswold v. Connecticut.5 In the Griswold case, the United States Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptioIn the Griswold case, the United States Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraception.

We're now in a court of law with those cases and I'm confident we'll prevail.»

If a business is owned by a properly established trust, and it is sued, in most cases the only assets that can be attacked or attached in a court of law are those that are in the trust itself.

I think the Supreme Court of Canada would deal with it [quickly], because I don't think the law is very complicated in this case.

There are a number of examples in Canadian case law where issuers were attempting to sell «utilities» or something similar to modern day tokens and coins, where the court simply didn't buy the argument.

And the decisions made in forced arbitration proceedings are final — meaning in most cases they can't be appealed in a court of law.

That's how I read the Supreme Court's decision not to hear cases in which lower courts ruled that marriage laws in various states that recognize unions only of a man and a woman are unconstitutional.

Full of himself, he stepped up when his case was called, and began, as we were taught to do in law school: «May it please the court, my name is Edward R. Lev and I represent the Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago.»

Michael W. McConnell is assistant professor of law and the University of Chicago Law School and a frequent litigator in Supreme Court cases involving church and stalaw and the University of Chicago Law School and a frequent litigator in Supreme Court cases involving church and staLaw School and a frequent litigator in Supreme Court cases involving church and state.

Lively, with representation by Liberty Counsel (an evangelical legal organization), responded that in both the U.S. and Uganda he exercised constitutionally protected speech rights; that he opposes violence and neither committed nor plotted any; that Uganda did not in fact pass a proposed draconian anti-gay law, and that in any case Uganda's political institutions, instead of himself, are responsible for its political decisions; and that the court lacks jurisdiction and the plaintiffs lack standing.

According to court documents, «in many cases the clients of the law firms had not actually suffered persecution in China.»

Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN)- A Christian girl accused of violating Pakistani blasphemy laws by allegedly burning pages containing texts from the Quran will have to wait at least another two weeks to learn her fate after a court ordered a stay of proceedings in her case Monday.

CNN: Setback for Pakistani teen facing blasphemy charges A Christian girl accused of violating Pakistani blasphemy laws by allegedly burning pages containing texts from the Quran will have to wait at least another two weeks to learn her fate after a court ordered a stay of proceedings in her case Monday.

That wasn't even Olson's case, but with assists from a federal district court judge who came out as being in a same - sex relationship only after ruling and retiring, and elected officials who chose to forgo their traditional duty to vigorously defend state law, Olson and Boies did succeed in disenfranchising millions of Californians on a procedural technicality.

The case represents the latest volley in a culture war of sorts as courts and academics — not to mention employers and employees — try to reconcile the law's fundamental commitment to two principles increasingly emerging at loggerheads: religious liberty and women's health.

This man» a former official of the Second Republic (the previous civilian government, overthrown by the military in 1983) who was once imprisoned by the current regime» told me that in many places in the north, where he often tries cases, Nigerian civil law has become a dead letter: judges regularly turn cases over to the sharia courts even if only one party to the case is a Muslim.

Yes, there are, sad to say, some cases of priestly sex abuse that have been proved to be true in a court of law or have been admitted by perpetrators.

In the federal employment anti-discrimination laws, a specific exception exists for religious bodies that discriminate on the basis of religion, and a couple of years ago, in the Hosanna - Tabor case, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution allows religious bodies to discriminate with respect to the employment of ministerIn the federal employment anti-discrimination laws, a specific exception exists for religious bodies that discriminate on the basis of religion, and a couple of years ago, in the Hosanna - Tabor case, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution allows religious bodies to discriminate with respect to the employment of ministerin the Hosanna - Tabor case, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution allows religious bodies to discriminate with respect to the employment of ministers.

The successful experience of the State of New York with such a law in which hundreds of cases have been adjusted satisfactorily even without recourse to the courts encourages us to believe that the difficulties are not nearly so great as some feared or wanted us to believe.42 It is true that one can easily put too much faith in sheer legislation which may be rendered futile if it is not supported in the community consciousness.

Editor's note: Douglas Laycock, Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Virginia, represented Hosanna - Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in the case the Supreme Court decided Wednesday.

They had their own courts in which they handled cases concerning marriage, divorce, inheritance, and other problems of Islamic law, evidence of the influence and power of Islam in China at that time.

Absent such a change in canon law, a bishop seeking to dismiss a priest will have to convince a canon court that the case warrants dismissal, and thus the zero tolerance policy amounts to nothing more than a declaration by the bishops that, because in their view all cases of sexual abuse warrant dismissal from the clerical state, they intend to seek this penalty in all cases.

This is such a truism that one is almost ashamed to pen the words, and yet it remains a fact that, in a great deal of the more conservative biblical scholarship, it does seem to be assumed that the appeal to factual accuracy would he as valid and important a factor in the case of ancient Near Eastern religious texts as it would be in a modern western court of law or in a somewhat literally - minded western congregation.

In the now famous Goodridge case, the Court leaned critically on the insistence that procreation is not a requirement of marriage, and that the laws on marriage «do not privilege procreative heterosexual intercourse between married people above every other form of adult intimacy.»

Also, Ashers Bakery in Northern Ireland has taken its case to the UK Supreme Court after it was accused of breaching equality laws by refusing to make a cake which supported same - sex marriage.

This week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases regarding the constitutionality of laws prohibiting gay marriage.

«In light of the unforeseeable changes in established first amendment law set forth in recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court,» the court said, «justice demands that we analyze the present case in light of the protections found in the Minnesota Constitution.&raquIn light of the unforeseeable changes in established first amendment law set forth in recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court,» the court said, «justice demands that we analyze the present case in light of the protections found in the Minnesota Constitution.&raquin established first amendment law set forth in recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court,» the court said, «justice demands that we analyze the present case in light of the protections found in the Minnesota Constitution.&raquin recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court,» the court said, «justice demands that we analyze the present case in light of the protections found in the Minnesota Constitution.&rCourt,» the court said, «justice demands that we analyze the present case in light of the protections found in the Minnesota Constitution.&rcourt said, «justice demands that we analyze the present case in light of the protections found in the Minnesota Constitution.&raquin light of the protections found in the Minnesota Constitution.&raquin the Minnesota Constitution.»

In the original court case, District Judge Isobel Brownlie ruled that religious beliefs could not dictate the law and ordered the firm to pay damages of # 500.

The justices on the current Court will do the real work of jurisprudence if they draw on the briefs, take the time to set forth the evidence, and show why the state or the federal government has a compelling case for casting around infants in the womb the full protection of the law.

Courts of law often rely upon such definitions in settling cases.

Since the Supreme Court, in the case of Furman v. Georgia in 1972, invalidated most existing laws permitting capital punishment, several states have enacted new legislation designed to meet the court's objections to the GeorgiaCourt, in the case of Furman v. Georgia in 1972, invalidated most existing laws permitting capital punishment, several states have enacted new legislation designed to meet the court's objections to the Georgiacourt's objections to the Georgia law.

According to the standard account of the matter, the power of judicial review — that is, the authority of the federal judiciary to invalidate acts of Congress and the President when they are deemed to be unconstitutional — came to be entrenched in our law by the acceptance, tacit or otherwise, of the Supreme Court's ruling in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison.

The same can not be said of this most illiberal Court, which has embarked on a course of inscribing one after another of the current preferences of the society (and in some cases only the counter-majoritarian preferences of the society's law - trained elite) into our Basic Law.&raqlaw - trained elite) into our Basic Law.&raqLaw.»

Thus, when the Court in Casey asks that its case law be given the obedience due to the Constitution, and when it insists that, above all, it must remain loyal to its own recently established precedents, it makes a reasonable request within the context of the new constitutional regime.