Sentences with phrase «contrary opinion of the court»

In our view, and with respect to the contrary opinion of the Court of Appeal, the trial judge made legal errors in his analysis of the offence and the Crown has met its burden of showing that these errors might reasonably be thought to have had a material bearing on his decision to acquit.

Not exact matches

If a leader can not listen to contrary opinions and make informed decisions based on a full range of views, then he / she courts disaster — as Rumsfeld did in Iraq.

An opinion of counsel, however, is not binding on the IRS or on the courts, and does not preclude the IRS from taking a contrary position.

No, but it does illustrate that the courts are capable of responding to the demands of justice despite one Supreme Court opinion to the contrary.

We have already covered the opinion handed down by Advocate General Cruz Villalón (see here), who suggested that the Court should allow Article 27 of the Charter in combination with the Directive to be applicable and to exclude thus the application of the national norm that was contrary to EU law despite the setting of proceedings between private parties.

At trial, the court found that the real purpose of the indemnity was to discourage the wife from reporting the matters in issue to the authorities, and wrote that «it would be in my opinion, contrary to public policy for the courts to lend assistance to the nondisclosure of statutory offences.»

According to the opinion, the Georgia Constitution indeed includes an implied right of access to the courts, despite Reed's protestations to the contrary, and the plaintiffs properly stated a claim that the mandatory e-filing procedures violated that right.

Among the opinions offered on the case by this country's jurisprudes, Michael Geist has pointed out how Justice Phelan's ruling runs contrary to a recent series of Supreme Court decisions that have taken «a broad, liberal approach to fair dealing,» and he imagines that the appeal could makes its way to the Supreme Court.

The ECJ's decision followed the opinion of an advocate - general that the right of access to a national court was a fundamental right under EU law and denial of such right would be contrary to the right to effective judicial protection.

Then Judge Alsup could still «acquit» (not in a legal, but practical sense) Google by holding there was no objective willfulness as Google had, in his opinion (contrary to that of the higher courts), good reasons for believing it was in its right to use the material at issue.

On the contrary, it is the daily practice of this court, and of all appellate courts where they reverse the judgment of an inferior court for error, to correct by its opinions whatever errors may appear on the record material to the case, and they have always held it to be their duty to do so where the silence of the court might lead to misconstruction or future controversy and the point has been relied on by either side and argued before the court.

To the extent that Palmer suggests a generally applicable proposition that legislative purpose is irrelevant in constitutional adjudication, our prior cases — as indicated in the text — are to the contrary; and, very shortly after Palmer, all Members of the Court majority in that case joined the Court's opinion in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971), which dealt with the issue of public financing for private schools and which announced, as the Court had several times before, that the validity of public aid to church - related schools includes close inquiry into the purpose of the challenged statute.

Moreover, this could also be an appropriate test case for the Supreme Court to clarify that the principles set out in National Bank of Canada v. RCIU (the case cited by the hyperbolic Bruce Pardy) do not apply to lawyers, either in their personal or professional capacities, and that Lavigne and Green together stand for the principle that not only is there no right «not to associate» in Canadian law, there is also no right «not to speak» when it comes to lawyers, contrary to the misapprehension of those who are shocked and amazed that the Law Society can require them to adopt a «Statement of Principles» that will, as the supporting legal opinion points out, make their «generic human rights obligations» more «personal... tangible... and readily accessible.»