Sentences with phrase «come to court again»

If you are in court and hear the judge say reset, that means you will have to come to court again.

They don't have to come to court again or check in with a probation officer.

What is coming to court again to do if you can take the law into your own hands and behave so lawlessly... We must respect and maintain the sanctity of that office,» he maintained.

Not exact matches

Once again after many, many years, a king's son came to the country and heard an old man telling about the hawthorn hedge: a palace was said to be behind it, in which a most beautiful king's daughter, named Briar Rose, had already been sleeping a hundred years, and the king and the queen and the whole court sleeping along with her.

The Jazz Age Comes Alive in July at Windsor Court Hotel June 20, 2017 The Windsor Court Hotel is excited to again participate in Tales of the Cocktail by hosting the annual weekend of Prohibition Tea, as well as a Spirited Dinner, in partnership with William Grant & Sons, devoted to American jazz greats.

The reality is 65 million people voted for Trump... and while a lot of those votes came from people who were legitimately frustrated with both political parties and wanted someone to shake up the system, and a lot of votes cam from traditional doctrinaire Republican voters who held their nose and voted for the guy because they wanted a tax cut, and other voters were pseudo-moralistic Evangelical hypocrites who wanted to reward McConnell for STEALING Merrick Garland's Supreme Court seat, there were a whole lot of Trump voters — including a lot of voters from Pennsylvania's «T» — who voted for Trump because they are racist, white supremicist xenophobes who saw in Trump someone who spoke their language and would «make america great again» (read «make america WHITE again»).

The luxury of an Undefeated Season means that Team Robinson can sit back and relax this coming Sunday and wait while 4 Teams get knocked out of the Playoffs before they even need to take the court again..

Coverage of the phone - hacking allegations has been subdued in the British press due to concerns about prejudicing the trial, but with the case coming before court in front of the international media it is now expected to dominate the front pages once again.

, again came to a standstill before Justice Peter Affen of the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama, Abuja, on Tuesday.

But this film, which once again is set in Havana and follows the celebration of the return of a man who'd been in exile for 16 years, sounds like it could see him back on top form, and he does have home court advantage when it comes to Cannes...

One way or another, this issue is sure to come before the Supreme Court again.

And you are right: this is almost assuredly going to the Supreme Court again in the years to come.

After the loss in court, I sold for a 70 % + loss, and then insult added to injury happened again... after 9/11, the products that they made for structural purposes came into high demand, and the stock shot up more than fifteen times.

«You can form a corporation, do something like this, and then when it comes time to go to court, hire an attorney and dissolve your corporation and then you're free to go start up again.»

Cairns Queens Court Holiday Accommodation Guest Review Response from Cairns Queens Court Holiday Accommodation Thanks Arruni for such a lovely review of our hotel - it was a pleasure to meet you and hope you come back and stay with us again.

Two things which I think could improve is I think it is a bit much to pay $ 7 to use the outside BBQ, and we booked a studio room so we could do a bit of cooking but we were to scared to do anything as we were told that even a toaster could set off the fire alarm and then we would have to pay approx $ 700 when the fire brigrade came, especially when the fire detector is between the small hotplates and the fan, Because of these two things, I don't know if I would stay there again, but everything else was good Cairns Queens Court Holiday Accommodation Guest Review Response from Cairns Queens Court Holiday Accommodation Hi Lynne Thank you for taking the time to write a review of your stay with us at Queens Court.

We are already hoping for an opportunity to come back soon and stay at the Lighthouse Court Hotel again!

These included: Mark Rothko, Philip Guston («Philip would say again and again — as if he had never said it before — that everything in a work of his had to be «felt»»), Franz Kline (he «held court at the Cedar Street Tavern almost every night after ten»), David Smith, Tony Smith, Robert Motherwell, Ad Reinhardt, Jackson Pollock, Barnett Newman, Hans Hofman («I always admired Hans» painting and believe that certain of his pictures — Lava and Agrigento come to mind — must be numbered among the greatest abstract expressionist canvases»), Willem de Kooning, and Clyfford Still («as a de Kooning man, it took me time to appreciate Still's innovation»).

For it is the Court that has time and time again come to fill the gaps created by the vague provisions of Article 20 TFEU and its associated provisions when faced by European individuals seeking to vindicate their citizenship rights.

It is unclear whether this more expansive approach, focusing on purpose and encompassing documents created by third parties, would be applied if the issue were to come before the same court again.

We, just as AG Wahl in para. 87 of his Opinion, expected the unexpected, as the Court (again) used its «classic» effet utile argument, and solely on this basis came to its conclusion (or in reverse order).

Unfortunately, therefore, one may expect that the prophecy of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque expressed at the time of the ECtHR judgment in A. and B. v. Norway — according to which the «progressive and mutual collaboration between the two European courts will evidently once again be deeply disturbed, Strasbourg going the wrong way and Luxembourg going the right way» (§ 80)-- comes true.

Doing the best I can, therefore, and taking into account all that should be taken into account, but disregarding all that is not relevant, and making findings on the balance of possibilities, and taking one consideration with another, I come to the inevitable conclusion that this couple should remain locked together for the rest of their days, be debarred from ever setting foot inside a court again, and that their lawyers should personally pay to each other all costs incurred, on an indemnity basis and without limit.

Such a case would permit one to determine whether the view Grant advocated in her cert petition tracks her own view, but the issue does not appear to have come before the court again since that time — at least not in a form that has resulted in a written opinion.

The court disagreed, and held that when the parties remarried, they came to the marriage with separate property that could not be divided again.

When the plaintiff initially came back to court, in obtained an interim injunction - it was, again, time limited, but since it was done on little notice to the defendant, it is an interim injunction rather than an interlocutory injunction.

Then came Edgerton v Edgerton and Shaikh [2012] EWCA Civ 181, [2012] All ER (D) 172 (Feb) in which Lord Neuberger MR again — in passing, only, on this occasion — consigned a family lawyer's assumption to the same dustbin as «Hildebrand rules»: «[36][The judge below] thought that, as the court in the ancillary relief proceedings had an inquisitorial, or quasi-inquisitorial (as Thorpe LJ put it in Parra v Parra [2002] EWCA Civ 1886, para 22), role, the normal rules as to issue estoppel did not apply.

We don't require parties to come in person, again we want to make sure we're flexible, increasing access to our court services.

The question is: do the documents in dispute, ie, MSP and Pharmanet, come withing the terms of either Rule 7 - 1 (1)(a), ie, documents that can be used by a party of record to prove or disprove a material fact or that will be referred to at trial or, if not, do they come under category 7 - 1 (11), generally, in the vernacular, referred to as the Guano documents... There is no question that there is a higher duty on a party requesting documents under the second category... that in addition to requesting, they must explain and satisfy either the party being demanded or the court, if an order is sought, with an explanation «with reasonable specificity that indicates the reason why such additional documents or classes of documents should be disclosed», and again, there is no doubt that the new Rules have limited the obligation for production in the first instance to the first category that I have described and has reduced or lessened the obligation for production in general...

For most simple criminal offenses and for most first offenders, police officers will typically either release a person directly from the scene after having given them effectively a summons to come to court, or they will bring them back to the police station, request that they sign some additional documents known as an undertaking with some fairly simplistic conditions on them and then release that person again later that evening.

It reminds me again that defending democracy often comes down to making sure that basics, things like clerks and court reporters, are effectively funded.

The more the flexibility law provides the better decisions and judgments are given by the law courts and people who are suffering from a long time in coming again and again to get the decision of their cases are now satisfied.

The reason was because our client did not have a lawyer at the time of first judgment and when we came on, we immediately provided the judge with the proper evidence but since judgment had already been rendered, the Court found it appropriate to send the case back to trial so it could be argued again.

But it is instructive to note how the decision to nix the court representation scheme came about, because it highlights yet again the tension among the self - interest of the profession, their gatekeeping power (it is lawyers who decide what DPs do), and the public interest.

I've seen what happens to many of these people in court, when they stand up and try to explain to the judge how they are «Mennonites» who can't be found guilty under the Constitution because it's a violation of their rights dating back centuries before America existed, or when they challenge the judge's right to preside over their case because of some arcane law, or that red light cameras are unconstitutional because they do not get to confront their accusers, again, I cringe, because I know what's coming.

The court felt that it was incorrect for a single judge to come to a conclusion, again by not giving the parties time to file their pleadings.

If your ex-spouse still refuses to comply and you must come back to court again, the judge can order additional remedies.

Psych.: Again it comes down, your Honour, to considering the question of failure to comply with the Court ruling.