Sentences with phrase «cited federal court cases»

Not exact matches

Huawei or its subsidiaries have been cited as a defendant or co-defendant in at least 172 federal patent infringement cases since 2003, according to a review of court filings.

A San Francisco federal judge, in what was apparently the first case to cite last month's SCOTUS opinion Cyan v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund remanded a securities class action against a blockchain startup to San Francisco Superior Court while keeping another in federal cCourt while keeping another in federal courtcourt.

«We cite the case of Sambo Dasuki who has been in detention for over two years and running even when many courts in Nigeria and the Ecowas Court have ordered for his release, but the President has fragrantly disobeyed these court orders which again are a violation of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of NigCourt have ordered for his release, but the President has fragrantly disobeyed these court orders which again are a violation of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigcourt orders which again are a violation of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

In the case of the former New York State Assembly speaker, a federal appeals court cited a 2016 Supreme Court ruling redefining illegal actions by public officcourt cited a 2016 Supreme Court ruling redefining illegal actions by public officCourt ruling redefining illegal actions by public officials.

Attorneys for Sheldon Silver have asked a federal judge to throw out corruption charges against the former Assembly speaker, citing the Supreme Court case that invalidated the convictions of Silver's old counterpart in Albany, former Senate majority leader Joe Bruno.

The appeals court first agreed with the trial court that the voucher programs did not run violate the Religion Clause, citing two Arizona Supreme Court cases, Community Council v. Jordan, 432 P. 2d 460 (Ariz. 1967), andKotterman v. Killian, 972 P. 2d 606 (1999), that suggested that Arizona's Religion Clause was «virtually indistinguishable from the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the federal Establishment Clause.&rcourt first agreed with the trial court that the voucher programs did not run violate the Religion Clause, citing two Arizona Supreme Court cases, Community Council v. Jordan, 432 P. 2d 460 (Ariz. 1967), andKotterman v. Killian, 972 P. 2d 606 (1999), that suggested that Arizona's Religion Clause was «virtually indistinguishable from the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the federal Establishment Clause.&rcourt that the voucher programs did not run violate the Religion Clause, citing two Arizona Supreme Court cases, Community Council v. Jordan, 432 P. 2d 460 (Ariz. 1967), andKotterman v. Killian, 972 P. 2d 606 (1999), that suggested that Arizona's Religion Clause was «virtually indistinguishable from the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the federal Establishment Clause.&rCourt cases, Community Council v. Jordan, 432 P. 2d 460 (Ariz. 1967), andKotterman v. Killian, 972 P. 2d 606 (1999), that suggested that Arizona's Religion Clause was «virtually indistinguishable from the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the federal Establishment Clause.&rCourt's interpretation of the federal Establishment Clause.»

the number of Federal court cases arising under the respective areas of law cited in the No FEAR Act where discrimination was alleged;

UCLA's Carlson said that the defendants will continue to file motions to dismiss the case citing different arguments — that the court doesn't have jurisdiction in such a case, for instance, or that the defendants don't have standing, or that federal law doesn't provide any recourse in such a lawsuit.

Liptak cites dictum from a 1993 decision, Herrera v. Collins, in which Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court,» [W] e may assume, for the sake of argument in deciding this case, that in a capital case a truly persuasive demonstration of «actual innocence» made after trial would render the execution of a defendant unconstitutional and warrant federal habeas relief.»

Citing its holding in Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962), the High Court conceded that federal courts possess certain «inherent powers,» not conferred by rule or statute, «to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.»

The King, [1948] S.C.R. 183 — 1948-04-08 Supreme Court of Canada — Federal usufruit — jouissance — rente viagère — fruits — usufruitier cited by 6 cases

A simple search of published court decisions shows that Wikipedia is frequently cited by judges around the country, involving serious issues and the bizarre — such as a 2005 tax case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals concerning the definition of «beverage» that involved hundreds of thousands of dollars, and, just this week, a case in Federal District Court in Florida that involved the term «booty music» as played during a wet T - shirt concourt decisions shows that Wikipedia is frequently cited by judges around the country, involving serious issues and the bizarre — such as a 2005 tax case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals concerning the definition of «beverage» that involved hundreds of thousands of dollars, and, just this week, a case in Federal District Court in Florida that involved the term «booty music» as played during a wet T - shirt conCourt of Appeals concerning the definition of «beverage» that involved hundreds of thousands of dollars, and, just this week, a case in Federal District Court in Florida that involved the term «booty music» as played during a wet T - shirt conCourt in Florida that involved the term «booty music» as played during a wet T - shirt contest.

Berman is cited a remarkable 19 times — including in a Supreme Court dissent in United States v. Booker and five federal circuit cases.

For case law cited in the BC Court of Appeal, or if you're dealing with federal laws, online is fine: the Court of Appeal's Practice Directive on the Citation of Authorities from 2013 accepts electronic sources with neutral cites; and Justice Canada made online acts and regulations official in 2009.

«As first noted here late last night, in today's edition of The Recorder of San Francisco, attorney Cyrus Sanai has an interesting essay entitled «Taking the Kozinski Challenge» that begins, «The fiercest battle within the federal appellate courts these days is not over abortion or gay marriage, but the arcane question of whether an attorney may cite the unpublished case law of an appellate court as the binding law of the circuit.»»

Instead of writing out «U.S.» every time you cite a Supreme Court case, «C.F.R.» everytime you cite a federal regulation, and «Plaintiff» every time you need to refer to the opposing party.

As I'll explain further below, a Linus Torvalds email that Motorola cited as prior art didn't ultimately persuade the court to stay this case for the duration of a parallel nullity action in the Federal Patent Ccourt to stay this case for the duration of a parallel nullity action in the Federal Patent CourtCourt.

Even though the case law Samsung cites gives Judge Koh more than enough ammunition to at least stay the case, Samsung's lawyers also present an argument that would enable the district court to reject Apple's demand for premature enforcement even if the court interpreted the Federal Circuit's mandate the way Apple proposes: «Manifest injustice would warrant deviation from a decision rejecting, without briefing, collateral estoppel or a stay»

U. L. Rev. 369, 438 (1992)(finding that attorneys who removed cases from state to federal court «most often cited summary judgment availability as their reason for removal» to federal court, and that the attorneys perceived «a greater willingness of the federal judiciary to grant summary judgment motions» as well as «organizational impediments limiting the ability of the state court judges to issue summary judgment rulings»).

Further drawing this distinction, the court cited a federal district court case where absolute privilege applied because the individual was «for all practical purposes compelled to make his statements to the commission» and «to classify [the] statements as only conditionally privileged would have caused great harm to the administration of government and the government's ability to ensure justice was served.»

The Barry's Ltd. decision was cited with approval by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Ward v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 1 SCR 569: «labour relations in the fisheries were held to be matters essentially falling within the provincial power to regulate business in the province and outside the federal fisheries power.»

In addition to the Fish Inspection Act cited by the court in that case is the Fisheries Act, one of the oldest pieces of federal legislation in Canada.

Most importantly, in a footnote, the appellate court found that all of the cited cases predate the enactment of Business and Professions Code section 6149, with California law «trumping» federal law on the subject.

Stratas cites the SCC's recent decision in Kanthasamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)(in which the court set aside the rejection of a humanitarian residency application) as a «baffling» case where the court flouted its own principle of «legislative supremacy» by ignoring Parliament's expressly stated intent that the Federal Court of Appeal should have the final say in the macourt set aside the rejection of a humanitarian residency application) as a «baffling» case where the court flouted its own principle of «legislative supremacy» by ignoring Parliament's expressly stated intent that the Federal Court of Appeal should have the final say in the macourt flouted its own principle of «legislative supremacy» by ignoring Parliament's expressly stated intent that the Federal Court of Appeal should have the final say in the maCourt of Appeal should have the final say in the matter.

The Federal Court in the P.S. Knight v CSA case cited by Howard and referred to by Gord found that as between the CSA and a private publisher, the CSA held copyright in the Canadian Electrical Code.

Those who litigate in federal court may need to think and argue about «Rule 11 sanctions,» but I wager that most will find it easier to refer to the Supreme Court's 1991 decision published at 499 U.S. 340 using its name or style or title or caption and will be able to remember that name long after forgetting the case court may need to think and argue about «Rule 11 sanctions,» but I wager that most will find it easier to refer to the Supreme Court's 1991 decision published at 499 U.S. 340 using its name or style or title or caption and will be able to remember that name long after forgetting the case Court's 1991 decision published at 499 U.S. 340 using its name or style or title or caption and will be able to remember that name long after forgetting the case cite.

Employers should not «let their guard down about complying with background screening rules» such as the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) despite recent court rulings such as the dismissal of a proposed FCRA class action lawsuit against transportation network company Lyft, Inc. by a federal judge who cited a decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Spokeo, Inc. v Robins as a reason for the decision, according to an article on the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) webcourt rulings such as the dismissal of a proposed FCRA class action lawsuit against transportation network company Lyft, Inc. by a federal judge who cited a decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Spokeo, Inc. v Robins as a reason for the decision, according to an article on the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) webCourt in the case of Spokeo, Inc. v Robins as a reason for the decision, according to an article on the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) website.