Sentences with phrase «civil cases require»

Most civil cases require parties to attempt mediation unless waived by the court.

It also might help the attorney because it shifts the burden of proof in a civil case requiring the member owing such a duty to prove good faith and fair dealing.

Not exact matches

Painter recommends that Congress pass a law right now that would require that when a President or his businesses have specific matters pending before a federal agency — like, say, an Internal Revenue Service audit, or a case before the National Labor Relations Board or the Securities and Exchange Commission, or a licensing issue before the Federal Communications Commission — that the matter must be decided by a career civil servant, rather than by a political appointee.

Bishops are required to cooperate - if approached by law enforcement - but are ALSO still under direction to keep silence on cases of abuse they learn about, and NOT to turn over priests to civil authorities.

... [T] aking it in this civil light, the law treats it as it does all other contracts; allowing it to be good and valid in all cases, where the parties at the time of making it were, in the first place, willing to contract; secondly, able to contract; and, lastly, actually did contract, in the proper forms and solemnities required by law.

I would only add that — always assuming that Morrigan is being serious rather than childishly tiresome — his / her position would seem to lead to the State refusing to recognise any religious marriage — I believe this is the case in France, where a civil ceremony is also required.

Most states have chosen not to follow the federal example with regard to judges and have either imposed a constitutional retirement age, as in the case of Colorado, where Colorado Constitution, Article IV, Section 23 (1) requires judges to retire at age 72, and / or have a commission overseeing judges (and sometimes other civil servants) that can require them to retire due to disabilities which often arise from old age.

Senate Independent Democratic Conference Leader Jeffrey Klein said the law requiring victims of sex abuse to seek legal recourse before their 23rd birthday should be eliminated not just for civil cases, but for criminal cases as well.

The act would let people issued civil summonses for the offenses avoid Criminal Court and have their cases heard by the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, which could issue fines or require community service.

The measure — which enjoys support from majority lawmakers in the Assembly and Senate — seeks to require anyone who has field a civil case in asbestos related illness complaints to file bankruptcy claims within 45 days.

In other cases, it has involved turning elements of civil society and the private economy into arms of government policy — by requiring compliance with policy goals that are foreign to many civil - society institutions or consolidating key sectors of the economy and offering protection to large corporations willing to act as public utilities or to advance policymakers» priorities.

During the Obama administration, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) sent out a letter requiring colleges and universities to use a «preponderance of the evidence» to determine innocence or guilt in sexual violence or harassment cases.

«(a) CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN APPROPRIATE CASES - Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary and except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), each district court shall, by local rule adopted under section 2071 (a), require that litigants in all civil cases consider the use of an alternative dispute resolution process at an appropriate stage in the litigaCASES - Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary and except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), each district court shall, by local rule adopted under section 2071 (a), require that litigants in all civil cases consider the use of an alternative dispute resolution process at an appropriate stage in the litigacases consider the use of an alternative dispute resolution process at an appropriate stage in the litigation.

«Of Dogs and Men does an excellent job educating citizens on both the common facts of these heartbreaking cases and the surprising scope of the problem, while highlighting the tools citizens can employ to change outcomes for the better — from legislation requiring officer training in canine encounters to litigation under the federal civil rights act,» Wells added.

So he proposes that the rules of civil procedure (in this case the scientific method) be changed to require the defendant to bear the burden of proof.

Mann has sued Steyn (disclosure: a good friend of many years) for defaming him, although the civil tort of defamation, as a practical matter, has not existed in the United States since the New York Times v. Sullivan case in 1964, which required proof of intent to defame in the case of a public figure.

RE # 193 my legal understanding (as a layperson) would be that we can not make a criminal case re the link between CC & hurricane intensity of a specific hurricane, which requires «beyond a resonable doubt» (sort of like a scientific standard of p <.05), but there could be a civil case, which requires a «preponderance of evidence.»

For example, in Massachusetts the courts require you to pay a filing fee to have your case heard and traffic tickets are considered a civil offense.

Brought on data protection and English tort claims, the case required a legal framework including 10 key elements that pulled from criminal, civil, English and European law.

Thus the strike out provision of FPR 2010, r 4.4 (1) under which the case had proceeded in the Court of Appeal has to be construed without reference to «real prospects of success» test (as required for civil proceedings under CPR 1998 r 24.2); and FPR 2010 Practice Direction PD4A para 2.4 is «an unhelpful curiosity [in the absence of] a power in FPR 2010 to give summary judgment».

However, he argued that the court should dispose of the case because the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their remedies under the Civil Service Reform Act, which required plaintiffs to first bring their claims to the Office of Special Counsel.

The point of this case was, therefore, to determine whether they would face criminal and / or civil penalties if they began to market in the UK products containing ingredients that had been tested on animals outside of the EU, because third state laws (such as those of China and Japan) require such testing.

To further address this problem, Pt 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules should be amended to require any offer to settle in cases involving significant injuries and future losses to be put on periodical payment orders (PPO) terms as well.

In that case, there are only a few situations in which a civil suit is required to obtain additional compensation for personal injury damages.

When there are multiple defendants in a case, the rules of civil procedure require a process that is governed by rules of evidence and the rules of civil procedure.

In this era (especially in civil cases) where your initial or main testimony is required by the rules of court to be in writing and sworn before the commissioner for oaths, you need to go through same properly before and after it is sworn to by you.

In a civil case, the plaintiff is only required to prove that you are guilty by a preponderance of the evidence.

It is the required standard in personal injury claims (and other civil cases).

The Court of Appeal found that all four elements required to prove a claim for civil fraud were established in this case.

Preponderance of the evidence refers to the amount of evidence that the plaintiff is required to prove during a civil case (in a criminal case, the «burden of proof» is «beyond a reasonable doubt»).

In civil cases that use sequestered juries, sequestration is not required during the trial itself, but begins when the jury has heard all the evidence and starts to deliberate.

As specified in section 25 of BC's Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, the case manager would have authority not only to decide which dispute resolution methods are to be used, but also to require the parties to participate in proceedings using said methods.

«Gideon Speaks, named after the landmark Supreme Court case which requires that counsel be provided for all indigent criminal defendants is a marriage of my love of the law and writing and discusses issues related to criminal and civil rights law in NYC.

It is interesting to observe at the same time that both the BMA and the Department of Health, who have sponsored the Bill, seem to be labouring under the same misapprehension about the «flexible» application of the civil standard of proof in healthcare regulatory cases, namely that more serious matters will require a higher degree of probability of being true.

They point to other professional regulators who are only required to prove their cases to the civil standard, such as medical regulators.

In particular, note that Civil Procedure Rule 31.4 and Practice Direction 31.2 A require that parties discuss with their opponents and, where possible, agree a strategy for the search and production of key evidence including ESI at an early stage, before the Case Management Conference.

Doing so effectively calls for research skills beyond those that students acquire through working with domestic legal resources.56 Mary Rumsey explains that students must go beyond their dependence on domestic databases to learn how to access the different resources relevant to international and comparative law.57 She describes, as examples, the need to find customary international law through treaties, laws of other nations, diplomatic correspondence, and scholarly works, and she points out that civil law research requires much more emphasis on statutes and scholarship than on the case law that plays such a dominant role in American legal analysis.58 While there have been significant advances in access to foreign and international legal sources, there are still substantial barriers, 59 and the research methods needed to obtain these resources can be different (in ways either subtle or stark) from those that apply to domestic law.

Nothing in the Constitution requires that assessment of fault in a civil case tried in a state court be made by a jury, nor is there any prohibition against such a finding being made in the first instance by an appellate, rather than a trial, court.

As such, the requirement in the MIG that an insured has the burden to lead «compelling evidence» that the MIG should not apply in his or her case was denounced as being contrary to the fundamental insurance law principle requiring an insurer to prove any exception to or limitation of coverage on the civil balance of probability.

We need to change the mindset that has defined, for centuries, the process by which we handle civil cases... Put another way: The foundations of the court system and the processes by which claims are resolved are outdated and require serious rethinking.

The median time required for a district court to process a civil case barely changed between 1990 and 2008, from eight months to 8.1 months.

Most courthouses will also require a Civil Case Cover Sheet used to identify your Petition.

[The following cases responding to this issue are in contrast to the rules of court governing civil cases where the court has the power to require that the party be examined before other witnesses on his behalf: Ontario Rule 52.06 (2)-RSB-.

In addition, these cases often have a strong international law component: More than 80 countries, including the United States and most developed countries, have adopted the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which requires that children who have been «wrongfully taken» or «wrongfully retained» overseas should normally be returned promptly to their country of habitual residence.

Till January 2013 family cases proceeded like all other civil litigation: expert evidence could be permitted if «reasonably required».

After that the court still has the power (and duty: FPR 2010 r 1.4 (2)(e)-RRB- to control the calling of evidence by deciding whether or not to give permission; and in so doing the case management judge must decide whether the evidence is «reasonably required» to resolve issues before the court (civil proceedings generally: CPR 1998 r 35.1), or in the case of family proceedings whether it is «necessary to resolve the proceedings» (Children and Families Act 2014, s 13 (6)(children proceedings); FPR 2010 r 25.4 (3)(other family proceedings)-RRB-.

Justice Karakatsanis: «The common law of civil contempt requires that the respondents prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Pintea had actual knowledge of the Orders for the case management meetings he failed to attend.

So, a «retaliatory countersuit» in the same case is entirely ordinary and indeed often required by the rules of civil procedure.

We hear about this changing face of the practice incessantly: growing numbers of self reps; access to civil denied for financial reasons to ever - expanding sections of society; court lists and judges groaning under the weight of the extra time required to deal with these kind of cases.

For this reason, our Rules of Civil Procedure provide for the option of a summary judgment motion, which allows the moving party to proceed «directly» to a judge and make a pitch that this particular case can be decided by a motion judge and does not require a full trial.