Sentences with phrase «cited by a civil court»

Although the case has been cited by a civil court just once to date (Nicolazzo v. Princess Cruises (2009), 250 O.A.C. 4 (Div.

Not exact matches

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.

Also March 20, 2018: New York state Judge Jennifer Schecter rules against Trump's lawyers» motion to dismiss the defamation case by Summer Zervos, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Clinton v. Jones that presidents are not immune from civil suits.

Professor Gary Orfield is Professor of Education and Social Policy and founding Co-Director of the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University is the author of many books and articles on school desegregation and other civil rights issues and his work was cited by the Supreme Court in its recent decision on affirmative acCivil Rights Project at Harvard University is the author of many books and articles on school desegregation and other civil rights issues and his work was cited by the Supreme Court in its recent decision on affirmative accivil rights issues and his work was cited by the Supreme Court in its recent decision on affirmative action.

Today, POLITICO cited a release from the U.S. House Education and Workforce Committee Democrats that claimed Florida's Tax Credit Scholarship Program «has faced many problems, including constitutional challenges in the courts, vast opposition by parents and civil rights organizations, fraud and corruption» and was a «waste of taxpayer funds.»

The Supreme Court, in its 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision upholding affirmative action, and in Justice Breyer's dissent (joined by three other Justices) to its 2007 Parents Involved in Community Schools decision, cited the Civil Rights Project's research.

Citing Richardson v. Vancouver (City), 2006 BCCA 36 (CanLII), a case in which police were sued for wrongful arrest by a plaintiff relying on their acquittal on the charge of obstructing justice, the Court of Appeal found it is improper to conflate issues pertaining to criminal responsibility and those pertaining to the civil liability of police.

92 JoEllen Lind, supra note 89, at 769 — 70 (citing 11 states rejecting all or part of the summary judgment standard articulated by the United States Supreme Court under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 56, and noting that differing state and federal summary judgment standards «make it much more likely that a defendant in federal court will obtain summary judgment than a defendant in state court»); J. Palmer Lockard, Summary Judgment in Pennsylvania: Time for Another Look at Credibility, 35Court under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 56, and noting that differing state and federal summary judgment standards «make it much more likely that a defendant in federal court will obtain summary judgment than a defendant in state court»); J. Palmer Lockard, Summary Judgment in Pennsylvania: Time for Another Look at Credibility, 35court will obtain summary judgment than a defendant in state court»); J. Palmer Lockard, Summary Judgment in Pennsylvania: Time for Another Look at Credibility, 35court»); J. Palmer Lockard, Summary Judgment in Pennsylvania: Time for Another Look at Credibility, 35 Duq.

One is that the Court had in mind the amicus brief authored by Harvard Law School's Jack Goldsmith, which Justice Kennedy prominently cited for the proposition that: «No other nation in the world permits its courts to exercise universal civil jurisdiction over alleged extraterritorial human rights abuses to which the nation has no connection» (emphasis added).

The Supreme Court of Canada has previously said, in the context of the BC Human Rights code, that compliance with religous tenets of a faith based school is a bona fide requirement of employment for a religious school (see Caldwell et al. v. Stuart et al., [1984] 2 SCR 603 — recently cited by the BC Court of Appeal in Vancouver Rape Relief Society v. Nixon for the basis that the Vancouver Rape Relief Center could discriminate against a non-genetic female) which held that a Catholic school could dismiss an employee who had married outside of the tenets of the Catholic faith (i.e., she had married a divorced non-catholic in a civil ceremony).

Between the hearing of the Petition and the hearing of the appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada made its recent pronouncement on «access to justice» in Canada's civil litigation system in the case of Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2104 SCC 7, cited by the justices in this appeal decision.