Sentences with phrase «change established case law»

This contextualization with reference to Council voting patterns suggests that the Court of Justice in Opinion 2/15 did not intend to significantly change established case law by proposing mandatory mixity for agreements covered partly or entirely by shared competences.

Not exact matches

«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.»

The threat to this idea of secularism arises form religious fundamentalism which is afraid of insecurity through change in traditional religious dogmas, ritual practices of purity and impurity in social laws; the threat also comes from communalism which seeks political power for one's religious community or in the case of Hindutva wants to establish a Hindu state.

1912: NEA endorses Women's Suffrage 1919: NEA members in New Jersey lead the way to the nation's first state pension; by 1945, every state had a pension plan in effect 1941: NEA successfully lobbied Congress for special funding for public schools near military bases 1945: NEA lobbied for the G.I. Bill of Rights to help returning soldiers continue their education 1958: NEA helps gain passage of the National Defense Education Act 1964: NEA lobbies to pass the Civil Rights Act 1968: NEA leads an effort to establish the Bilingual Education Act 1974: NEA backs a case heard before the U.S. Supreme Court that proposes to make unlawful the firing of pregnant teachers or forced maternity leave 1984: NEA fights for and wins passage of a federal retirement equity law that provides the means to end sex discrimination against women in retirement funds 2000s: NEA has lobbied for changes to the No Child Left Behind Act 2009: NEA delegates to the Representative Assembly pass a resolution that opposes the discriminatory treatment of same - sex couple

Since there are basically only two bankruptcies most individuals file, a Chapter 7 or a Chapter 13, you must meet certain standards established by law in order to change your mind about filing in either case.

In summary, a strong case can be made that the US emissions reduction commitment for 2025 of 26 % to 28 % clearly fails to pass minimum ethical scrutiny when one considers: (a) the 2007 IPCC report on which the US likely relied upon to establish a 80 % reduction target by 2050 also called for 25 % to 40 % reduction by developed countries by 2020, and (b) although reasonable people may disagree with what «equity» means under the UNFCCC, the US commitments can't be reconciled with any reasonable interpretation of what «equity» requires, (c) the United States has expressly acknowledged that its commitments are based upon what can be achieved under existing US law not on what is required of it as a mater of justice, (d) it is clear that more ambitious US commitments have been blocked by arguments that alleged unacceptable costs to the US economy, arguments which have ignored US responsibilities to those most vulnerable to climate change, and (e) it is virtually certain that the US commitments can not be construed to be a fair allocation of the remaining carbon budget that is available for the entire world to limit warming to 2 °C.

Due to changes in the law, in order to bring a medical malpractice case against a doctor, a preliminary finding of physician negligence must first be established.