Sentences with phrase «consider arguments in a case»

This fall the U.S. Supreme Court will consider arguments in a case that goes to the very heart of the constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion.

Not exact matches

If that's the case, there is an argument that the value is zero (if you consider the very moment of its inception), but the answer could also be «hundreds of dollars» based on its value in the market that same day.

The report, called «Separating Church and State: The Case for Disestablishment», outlines the central arguments for splitting the church and state and considers the challenges involved in making this a reality.

For Leclerc, however, the loss of immediacy (which is always present in the case of a normal serial society) forms the main argument for conceiving God as a society, because Leclerc considers «perishing» to be metaphysically required for every prehensibility, including God's (Review of William Christian, An Interpretation of Whitehead's Meta physics, Journal of Philosophy 57 [1960], 138 - 143; henceforth cited as RWC).

Judge Wilken also dismissed some of the NCAA's arguments as duplicative to those considered — and rejected — in the O'Bannon case.

Here is what you wrote — «Despite the fact that a Fall 2012 Cochrane Library Review (considered the gold standard of independent inquiry and scientific objectivity) reports that home birth is as safe or in many cases actually safer than hospital birth, the American obstetrical community continues to publicly oppose homebirth, citing safety concerns as their main argument.»

Despite the fact that a Fall 2012 Cochrane Library Review (considered the gold standard of independent inquiry and scientific objectivity) reports that home birth is as safe or in many cases actually safer than hospital birth, the American obstetrical community continues to publicly oppose homebirth, citing safety concerns as their main argument.

«The imposition of such automatic penalties could have the consequences of making the courts less receptive to arguments that the GAAR applies, because in marginal cases they may consider the imposition of such penalties to be unfair.

In these cases, especially if you have agreed to address the rest of the reviewers» comments, the editor may be willing to consider a reasonably worded argument that the request does not need to be fulfilled for acceptance of your paper.

Many of today's investors swear by it not because they have considered the theoretical arguments pro and con and been convinced by the pro case but because they made money during the bull and attributed those gains not to the fact that stocks were priced well early in the bull market but to the fact that they were following a Buy - and - Hold strategy at the time.

The ambiguous title of her sculpture, There Can Be No Arguments, 2010 is a seemingly definitive statement that invites us to consider its relationship to the materials comprising the work — in this case baby pink plaster powder clinging to the surface of a large polythene sheet.

«In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretatioIn philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretatioin the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.

In summary, a strong case can be made that the US emissions reduction commitment for 2025 of 26 % to 28 % clearly fails to pass minimum ethical scrutiny when one considers: (a) the 2007 IPCC report on which the US likely relied upon to establish a 80 % reduction target by 2050 also called for 25 % to 40 % reduction by developed countries by 2020, and (b) although reasonable people may disagree with what «equity» means under the UNFCCC, the US commitments can't be reconciled with any reasonable interpretation of what «equity» requires, (c) the United States has expressly acknowledged that its commitments are based upon what can be achieved under existing US law not on what is required of it as a mater of justice, (d) it is clear that more ambitious US commitments have been blocked by arguments that alleged unacceptable costs to the US economy, arguments which have ignored US responsibilities to those most vulnerable to climate change, and (e) it is virtually certain that the US commitments can not be construed to be a fair allocation of the remaining carbon budget that is available for the entire world to limit warming to 2 °C.

In order more fully to illustrate the mischief of denying a hearing to opinions because we, in our own judgment, have condemned them, it will be desirable to fix down the discussion to a concrete case; and I choose, by preference, the cases which are least favorable to me — in which the argument against freedom of opinion, both on the score of truth and on that of utility, is considered the strongesIn order more fully to illustrate the mischief of denying a hearing to opinions because we, in our own judgment, have condemned them, it will be desirable to fix down the discussion to a concrete case; and I choose, by preference, the cases which are least favorable to me — in which the argument against freedom of opinion, both on the score of truth and on that of utility, is considered the strongesin our own judgment, have condemned them, it will be desirable to fix down the discussion to a concrete case; and I choose, by preference, the cases which are least favorable to me — in which the argument against freedom of opinion, both on the score of truth and on that of utility, is considered the strongesin which the argument against freedom of opinion, both on the score of truth and on that of utility, is considered the strongest.

Although a strong case can be made that historical ghg emissions before 1990 should be considered in determining a nation's fair share of safe global emissions, selecting a common baseline year such as 1990 would facilitate easier citizen comparison of national commitments while retaining the rights of nations to make arguments that historical ghg emissions should be considered in any equity framework.

This case shall be considered more extensively in the argument against automatic loss below — however, disentanglement of the two constitutive elements of the condition for acquisition of EU citizenship may already lead to a means of distinguishing the present «Amsterdam case» from Rottmann.

A recent decision of the Human Rights Tribunal considered a similar argument, although one with dramatically less severe legal consequences, in a case involving the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

The court has, in many cases, been prepared to hear argument and see evidence from them (usually on limited issues) and has also been prepared to consider costs awards against them and in their favour depending upon the outcome of their involvement.

At the close of the case, each side presents closing arguments, which is also not considered evidence, and then the jury is instructed by the judge on the law to apply in the case.

I find that participants very much like the fact that I have been a QC for some 19 years, working on all types of leading business / finance cases and that they consider that this experience is invaluable both in terms of my suitability for appointment as a mediator (because the participants in business / finance cases prefer a mediator experienced in these areas), and in terms of facilitating a settlement in the mediation; because, although a mediator does not advise the participants, nevertheless, with their agreement, I can «stress test» the strengths of their arguments.

But in the non-LiP case of Woodward and another v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd [2018] EWHC 334 (Ch) which came three weeks after Barton and in which Master Bowles considered the latter subsequent to oral argument, the defendant's solicitors» silence until the time for service had expired over not being instructed to accept service tipped the balance in favour of CPR 6.15 (2) validation.

Considering the implications of the judgment, and the polemic surrounding this specific case and the EU asylum system as a whole, it would have been beneficial to have a deeper insight in the arguments and reasoning of the Court.

Remember, the judge will instruct the jury at the beginning and end of the case that the opening statement and closing arguments of the lawyers are not evidence to be considered in the case.

In the latter case he also considered the competing public interest arguments under Art 8.

The Supreme Court of California, in Re Marriage Cases (15 May 2008, S147999), actually stresses the societal importance of the family, particularly in the nurture of children, but considers this an argument in favour of equal marriage, given that Californian law now fully recognises the childraising capacity of gay couples.

I suggested that Sam might consider bringing actual client files with him to court, just in case a judge asked for a document, or maybe if his adversary raised an argument that he could destroy with a document in his possession, pulled with a flourish from his file and handed up with verve.

Thus, after rejecting the alleged infringement of art. 67 LRJCA by the judgment under appeal, the High Court to understand that it gave a succinct but substantial enough to arguments made in response instance, if it considers, however, an infringement of Art. 6.1 b) of Law 17/2001, of Trademarks, and the applicable case law.

The First Circuit panel also accepted Hughes Hubbard's argument that his request to have his claim considered by the highest court of Massachusetts was untimely because he chose to file his case in federal court and go to trial without requesting that the state court consider his novel legal theory.

For those wishing my arguments in favour of recognizing such a cause of action, consider my earlier post: Tort Damages Place in Wrongful Dismissal Cases especially under the heading «Why tort damages are necessary and why you have to prove them.»

at 20: «Where a matter is as conceptually simple as in the case at hand and the record makes clear that the sentencing judge considered the evidence and arguments, we do not believe the law requires the judge to write more extensively.»

Shullman analyzed oral arguments in ten cases at the United States Supreme Court, noting each question asked by the Justices and assigning a score from one to five to each depending on how helpful or hostile she considered the question to be.

The appropriate standard of review in this case does not seem particularly contentious in light of the foregoing — until one considers the argument from the Human Rights Tribunal that its determination is entitled to deference based on paragraphs 166 to 168 of the Supreme Court of Canada's 2013 decision in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Tribunal) v Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11.

With regards to the Father's Re C argument, the Court of Appeal dismissed that as it considered that in internal relocation cases the child's welfare is the paramount consideration.

Comments from attorneys and litigants who've made this argument are most welcome Moore v. Moore, 300 S.C. 75, 386 S.E. 2d 456, 458 (1989) is the seminal South Carolina case on the factors the court should consider in determining whether to return a child to a parent after that child has lived with a non parent -LSB-...]

neutral evaluation: When a person (or persons) not involved in the case hears written and verbal information, then considers each side's information and evidence in order to help the parties to settle the argument.

However, the Court is only allowed to consider arguments made in the courtroom and in documents properly filed by actual parties in the case as authorized by law and the Rules of Court.

In a society with extremely inexpensive communication, lower courts might chose to consider the arguments, but not the decisions, of one another, rather like a court might be interested in the decisions of a foreign court dealing with a new kind of casIn a society with extremely inexpensive communication, lower courts might chose to consider the arguments, but not the decisions, of one another, rather like a court might be interested in the decisions of a foreign court dealing with a new kind of casin the decisions of a foreign court dealing with a new kind of case.

How Appealing links here to lots of major media coverage previewing SCOTUS oral arguments in the three big «honest services» fraud cases to be considered by the Supreme Court this term.

The argument against Ripple: Critics here argue that there's a case that XRP could be considered a security because of the way that it was released in many ways a variation on the initial coin offering (ICO) model.

If that's the case, there is an argument that the value is zero (if you consider the very moment of its inception), but the answer could also be «hundreds of dollars» based on its value in the market that same day.

If you're about to embark upon the divorce process or are in the middle of a high - conflict divorce and custody case, you may want to consider making an argument for a custody agreement or order that specifically institutes parallel parenting.

When one considers that arguing attorneys and family law judges typically learn about Parental Alienation via arguments, examinations and cross examinations in court, it should not be surprising that such understandings are usually limited to the facts of a particular case, and are not necessarily characteristic of specific knowledge acquisition.

The high court rejected the argument because the California courts had considered all the issues raised in the case.