Sentences with phrase «claim under the new rule»

Not exact matches

They claim that their movie is the first feature length narrative film to give the public an opportunity under the new rules to invest in it.

Mandatory Palestine was a geographic area with defined borders and under British Rule up until 1948 when the Jews decided to take UN Resolution 181 as law and claim that the borders defined in 181 defined a new State of Israel.

Under the new rules, for - profit and publicly traded companies can also claim religious exemptions.

However, he also stressed «the important thing» is that new rules brought in under this government mean MPs» claims are now assessed by an independent body, rather than a committee of fellow MPs.

The New Patriotic Party is claiming some journalists have been paid whopping sums of money by the John Mahama administration to keep their focus on the internal happenings of the NPP, as opposed to bad governance the people have been subjected to under the seven - year rule of the NDC government.

Switching to less preferential World Trade Organisation rules — the stopgap arrangement Brexit campaigners suggest would be in place while talks on new trade deals get under way — could jeopardise more than a third of that trade, or # 250bn, as tariffs on British exports increased, the campaign claimed.

Under the new rules, to be introduced in April, new European arrivals claiming jobseeker's allowance will not be able to receive housing benefit as well.

The plaintiffs in this new lawsuit claim that the Empowerment Account program is unconstitutional under the Arizona Supreme Court's 2009 ruling in Cain v. Horne, which struck down a voucher program for children with disabilities.

The obvious issue of cost is not lost on advocates of the new rule, but NHTSA claims that by 2018, a backup camera and display system will cost under $ 150 to install.

In her statement, Secretary of Education DeVos said that nearly 16,000 borrower defense claims are currently being processed, and the Department of Education will continue to process applications under the current rule until a new one is enacted.

Meanwhile, Crowns and defence lawyers say an increasing number of motions claiming delay under the new rules are being filed and have yet to be heard.

The new procedure seems to contemplate and resemble what is known in the federal courts as motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12 (b)(6).

In short, Rule 15 incorporates the mandatory language of Rule 68 for personal injury claims under $ 100,000 so this case will likely retain its value as a precedent after the new rules take effect.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, interpreting two topics under the New BC Supreme Court Civil Rules, the test of «proportionality» and the circumstances permitting a Court to sever liability (the issue of fault) from quantum (the value of a personal injury claim).

LawPRO has already received notice of a few dozen such potential claims, and we anticipate an increase in the number of such claims in 2017 as court offices across the province begin sending out communications about claims that have been dismissed under the new rule.

However, in the final months of the year, LawPRO claims personnel saw an increase in claims due to administrative dismissals under the new Rule 48 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a trend that we expect will continue in 2017.

The consequences of taking ICBC claims to court and beating (or not beating) a formal settlement offer seem to be less certain under this new rule.

SAS appealed the PTAB decision to the Federal Circuit, arguing that the PTAB improperly based its decision on a claim interpretation different from the one adopted in its decision to institute, and on the grounds that the Board was required to address all challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 318 (a), As discussed previously, the Federal Circuit ruled that the PTAB erred in relying on a new claim construction with providing adequate notice to the patent owner.But the Federal Circuit ruled that the Board acted within its authority to omit some challenged claims from the final written decision.

Represented the United States government in a claim under the rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce against the Soviet Union and its successor, the Russian Federation, for the bugging of the new United States Embassy in Moscow and other breaches of agreements for the Embassy's construction.

In 2008 the US entrepreneur Mr Carl A. Sax, represented by Amsterdam & Partners, brought a claim against the city of St Petersburg, Rossiya Airlines and Pulkovo Airport (co-respondents) in an ad hoc arbitration under UNCITRAL Rules in Stockholm, alleging breaches of the investment contract regarding the development of a new international passenger terminal at Pulkovo International Airport in St Petersburg back in the 1990s.

The decision, handed down in October 2013, held that state statutes and rules regulating an attorney's disclosure of client confidences were not pre-empted by the False Claims Act and that the former general counsel's decision to «spill his guts and freely disclose Unilab's confidential information» went well beyond anything that was authorized under the crime / fraud exception of the New York Rules of Professional Conrules regulating an attorney's disclosure of client confidences were not pre-empted by the False Claims Act and that the former general counsel's decision to «spill his guts and freely disclose Unilab's confidential information» went well beyond anything that was authorized under the crime / fraud exception of the New York Rules of Professional ConRules of Professional Conduct.

The Second Motion Judge concluded «In my view, it is essentially an alternative theory of liability for the same complaint... I agree with the Plaintiffs that the Amended Claim does not advance a «new cause of action» for the purposes of the Limitations Act and under normal circumstances an amendment would be permissible under Rule 26.01 [of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg.