Sentences with phrase «challenged statutes»
"Challenged statutes" refers to laws that are being questioned or argued against in a legal context. Full definition
The State claimed that RIAR could not challenge the statute because it was not being prosecuted under it.
nar.realtor
In the First Amendment context, we permit defendants to challenge statutes on overbreadth grounds regardless of whether the individual defendant's conduct is constitutionally protected.
It also challenged a statute that requires districts to have «just cause» to fire tenured teachers, a law that undergirds a slow - moving appeals process for removing teachers.
On July 28th, 2014, seven brave families filed complaint with Supreme Court for the State of New York in Albany County specifically challenging these statutes:
Hueston Hennigan attorneys have repeatedly and successfully challenged statutes and other government regulations that impact our clients» businesses and interests.
The North Carolina Association of Educators filed suit, challenging the statute on both state and federal grounds.
The Energy and Environment Legal Institute (EELI) challenged the statute, contending that out - of - state, nonrenewable energy companies that sell on the Colorado power grid could lose business.
Yet the court reasoned that it is the administrative decisions of district leaders — rather than the challenged statutes — which bear the ultimate responsibility for how teachers are distributed across the state.
So, do the challenged statutes «inevitably cause» poor and minority students to be provided with a lower quality education?
The Court of Appeal acknowledged that the challenged statutes increase the number of ineffective teachers in California schools and that low - income and minority students in California are disproportionately taught by less effective teachers.
As the Court of Appeal noted, the challenged statutes are, indeed, bad policy.
«Plaintiffs still could have demonstrated a facial equal protection violation, however, by showing that the challenged statutes, regardless of how they are implemented, inevitably cause poor and minority students to be provided with an education that is not «basically equivalent to» their more affluent and / or white peers.»
However, given historical political allegiances and a strong dose of rationalization, our political leaders are having a difficult time seeing the challenged statutes for what they are.
Plaintiffs» equal protection claims assert that the Challenged Statutes violate their fundamental rights to equality of education by adversely affecting the quality of the education they are afforded by the state.»
It found «that the Challenged Statutes impose a real and appreciable impact on students» fundamental right to equality of education and that they impose a disproportionate burden on poor and minority students.»
«Plaintiffs claim that the Challenged Statutes result in grossly ineffective teachers obtaining and retaining permanent employment, and that these teachers are disproportionately situated in schools serving predominantly low - income and minority students.
The Court of Appeal acknowledged that the challenged statutes increase the number of ineffective teachers in...
First, it explains that by helping to insulate teachers from backlash or retaliation, the challenged statutes allow teachers to act in students» interests in deciding when and how to present curricular material and to advocate for students within their schools and districts.
«The challenged statutes do not inevitably lead to the assignment of more inexperienced teachers to schools serving poor and minority children,» said Boren, who received his judicial appointments from Republican Govs. George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson.
Second, the brief argues that students are better off when good teachers remain in their classrooms, and the challenged statutes promote teacher longevity and discourage teacher turnover.
«The challenged statutes do not inevitably lead to the assignment of more inexperienced teachers to schools serving poor and minority children,» Presiding Justice Roger Boren said in the 3 - 0 ruling.
The amicus brief contesting this decision argues that the challenged statutes help protect teachers from retaliation, help keep good teachers in the classroom by promoting teacher longevity and discouraging teacher turnover, and allow teachers to act in students» interests in presenting curricular material and advocating for students within the school system.
Plaintiffs failed to establish that the challenged statutes violate equal protection, primarily because they did not show that the statutes inevitably cause a certain group of students to receive an education inferior to the education received by other students.
In Vergara, Low - Income Students Pay... One Way or Another Brookings, 6/3/16 «So, do the challenged statutes «inevitably cause» poor and minority students to be provided with a lower quality education?
We believe the challenged statutes are promoting ineffective teachers, punishing good teachers, discouraging new and aspiring teachers, and most importantly, robbing Minnesota's children of the education they deserve.
Citing two earlier cases that forced changes in state laws regarding students» rights to quality education through money spent and time of instruction provided, as well as evidence in Vergara, he said the plaintiffs «have proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Challenged Statutes impose a real and appreciable impact on students» fundamental to quality of education and that they impose a disproportionate burden on poor and minority students.»
Ted Boutrous, the plaintiffs» lawyer, responded by telling the court they have provided overwhelming and compelling evidence that demonstrates the challenged statutes impose a «real and appreciable» impact on students» fundamental right to an education.
During a rather contentious examination, defense lawyer Jonathan Weissglass tried to show that problems at Markham were created by ineffective school administrators, not the challenged statutes.
«You can't make sense out of non-sense,» he intoned more than once, insisting that the challenged statutes are the prime reason why so many ineffective teachers remain in California classrooms.
The lawyers for the state and teacher unions mounted strong counter arguments, that the challenged statutes are not the problem.
The California appeals court judges concluded that the plaintiffs «failed to establish that the challenged statutes violate equal protection, primarily because they did not show that the statutes inevitably cause a certain group of students to receive an education inferior to the education received by other students.»
Returning to the defense's main contention that well - run schools, and not the challenged statutes, are the real problem, Johnson told the court that an effective Peer & Assistance Review programs (PAR), which most districts have, can contribute to efficient and effective dismissal processes.
To quote Judge Rolf M. Treu: «Substantial evidence presented makes it clear to this court that the challenged statutes disproportionately affect poor and / or minority students.