Sentences with phrase «correcting trial court»

Lawyers should be mindful that a court of appeals engages in two discrete functions: correcting trial court error and law making.

Not exact matches

In addition, the high court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the state must act to correct the deficiency.

The Appeals Court found the trial court's initial ruling, including the court's findings of the bad faith tactics of the district, was correct in all aspCourt found the trial court's initial ruling, including the court's findings of the bad faith tactics of the district, was correct in all aspcourt's initial ruling, including the court's findings of the bad faith tactics of the district, was correct in all aspcourt's findings of the bad faith tactics of the district, was correct in all aspects.

«More often than not, the court of appeal and the trial courts say that they can correct what the Crown has done wrong by instructing the jury, and I must say I find that unsatisfactory in most cases,» Lockyer says.

The court held this «poison pill» provision did not apply where a trial court erroneously held the class waiver was unenforceable and the error is corrected on appeal.

The appellate court judges are required to presume the jury's decisions at trial were correct — as long as the record on appeal contains evidence to support the jury's verdict.

Issue: In personal injury cases should a trial judge be allowed to courageously correct mistakes made by the jury which lead to unreasonably high court awards?

2017), the Virginia Court of Appeals remanded a divorce case back to the trial court for a nunc pro tunc («now for then») order granting a divorce from the bond of matrimony for adultery, to correct what the appellate court believed was a clerical error in granting a divorce a mensa et thoro instead, a divorce from bed and board or what the court called a legal separaCourt of Appeals remanded a divorce case back to the trial court for a nunc pro tunc («now for then») order granting a divorce from the bond of matrimony for adultery, to correct what the appellate court believed was a clerical error in granting a divorce a mensa et thoro instead, a divorce from bed and board or what the court called a legal separacourt for a nunc pro tunc («now for then») order granting a divorce from the bond of matrimony for adultery, to correct what the appellate court believed was a clerical error in granting a divorce a mensa et thoro instead, a divorce from bed and board or what the court called a legal separacourt believed was a clerical error in granting a divorce a mensa et thoro instead, a divorce from bed and board or what the court called a legal separacourt called a legal separation.

However, the Court found that the defects in the question to the jury did not necessitate a new trial, and that the trial judge was correct not to poll the jury in the circumstances, despite having the jurisdiction to do so.

The rule allows a trial court to consider the issue and to correct it if necessary.

Was the appellate court's reasoning regarding damages correct — or was this just an end run to reverse the trial court's partial default against Morgan Stanley for discovery violations?

For our trial courts in Alberta, we usually follow the court of appeal guideline to be consistent, and therefore correct.

Select Wines appealed to the Divisional Court, which corrected the trial judge's failure to find that Mr. Nagribianko was a probationary employee.

The appellate process is mostly limited to correcting flaws in procedure and not to change a trial court's finding of fact.

In addition to extensive trial experience, Hicks has had many successes in the Appellate Courts and was lead counsel in Crippen vs. Central Jersey Concrete Pipe, 176 N.J. 397, 823 A2d 789 (2003), in which a widow sued her late husband's employer for covering up its failure to correct violations found by OSHA in its equipment circumventing the statutory Workers Compensation bar to employee lawsuits against their employer.

The Superior Court was correct to overturn a guilty verdict and order a new trial, after a judge accessed a Google image on his own accord, impacting the fairness of the trial, says Toronto criminal lawyer Graham Clark.

The Court of Appeal dismisses the appeal; finds the Trial Judge applied the correct causation test; and no evidence smoke alarms would have allowed for an earlier escape.

The latest column highlights in one case a lawyer who, in an unsuccessful effort to increase his own attorney's fees, argued that the trial court awarded his clients too much money, and in another case, a lawyer whose claim that the mistakes in his second «corrected» brief were excusable because he was a sole practitioner with limited resources only resulted in its rejection by the court.

Appellate review serves many functions in law, including: promoting equal justice, correcting errors of judgment committed by the trial court, and developing a precedent of law to be applied in future disputes.

Court orders new trial after judge accesses Google image The Superior Court was correct to overturn a guilty verdict and order a new trial, after a judge accessed a Google image on his own accord, impacting the fairness of the trial, says Toronto criminal lawyer Graham Clark.

The court also corrected the trial judge's conclusion that allegations of abuse were not relevant to the jurisdictional issue, noting that such allegations are relevant to the s. 23 analysis regarding «serious harm.»

Unfortunately, it failed to adduce the evidence it was prevented from introducing at trial [4] and has decided it can not correct its error before this Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada concluded in this decision that the material contribution test was not applicable and returned the matter to the trial judge to be dealt with on the correct basis of «but for» causation.

As such, the Court found the trial judge was correct to use the «comparative blameworthiness» approach and Contributory Negligence Act and «any omissions the trial judge might have made in his reasons — absent proof that he had actually forgotten, ignored or misconceived the evidence at trial — does not constitute palpable and overriding error» (para. 55).

The Supreme Court of Georgia held that the trial court was correct to suppress the evidence, noting that the officer had no particularized basis (also known as reasonable articulable suspicion) to stop Mr. Vansant's tCourt of Georgia held that the trial court was correct to suppress the evidence, noting that the officer had no particularized basis (also known as reasonable articulable suspicion) to stop Mr. Vansant's tcourt was correct to suppress the evidence, noting that the officer had no particularized basis (also known as reasonable articulable suspicion) to stop Mr. Vansant's truck.

Both of the husband's arguments were rejected, with the court noting that OCL reports do not bind trial judges, and that the trial judge was correct in noting that the court could not make an order affecting the wife's mother's interest in the matrimonial home without the wife's mother being a party to the proceeding.

Since the trial court applied the correct legal standard and reasonably determined that Lowrey presented insufficient evidence of the defendant's knowledge, it was correct to grant the defendant's motion.

Last month, an appellate court in Michigan issued an opinion in a premises liability case, finding that the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment to the defendant, due to the plaintiff's failure to present evidence of a required element of her claim.

In so concluding, the court carefully considered the record at trial, along with the fresh evidence filed on the appeal, and applied the correct legal principles.

Appellate attorneys seek to correct errors of trial court judges and change the law by persuading appellate courts to overturn lower court decisions or to expand or change the interpretation of statutory law.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that the trial judge had been correct to admit the report so far as it dealt with the facts, and correct to exclude it so far as it offered an expert opinion — though another expert could have given an opinion on the basis of the facts in the report.

Moreover, in the eyes of the Appeals Court, the trial judge applied the correct analysis for determining whether just cause had been established, as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in McKinley v. BC Tel, 2001 SCC 38 (CanLII), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 161, and as later referenced by this court in Dowling v. Ontario (Workplace Safety & Insurance Board)(2004), 2004 CanLII 43692 (ON CA), 246 D.L.R. (4th) 65 Court, the trial judge applied the correct analysis for determining whether just cause had been established, as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in McKinley v. BC Tel, 2001 SCC 38 (CanLII), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 161, and as later referenced by this court in Dowling v. Ontario (Workplace Safety & Insurance Board)(2004), 2004 CanLII 43692 (ON CA), 246 D.L.R. (4th) 65 Court of Canada in McKinley v. BC Tel, 2001 SCC 38 (CanLII), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 161, and as later referenced by this court in Dowling v. Ontario (Workplace Safety & Insurance Board)(2004), 2004 CanLII 43692 (ON CA), 246 D.L.R. (4th) 65 court in Dowling v. Ontario (Workplace Safety & Insurance Board)(2004), 2004 CanLII 43692 (ON CA), 246 D.L.R. (4th) 65 (Ont.

Corrected: In upholding the ruling of Madam Justice Smith at trial, the Court of Appeal emphasized the fact - intensive evidence that was presented.

In the case N.R.G v. G.R.G., The B.C Court of Appeal determined that the trial judge did not use the proper approach in when determining the best interest of the children (s. 37 of the Family Law Act) and found that some orders made were instead focused on correcting the behaviour of the parents.

In terms of substantive issues, the Court needed to determine the appropriate implementation and use of the new war crime legislation, particularly how a trial judge must instruct himself or a jury on the correct legal requirements of such a charge in the context of criminal law principles.

Mr. Altenbernd: The very first basic thing lawyers need to understand is that this process puts the other side on notice of your position and also gives the trial judge an opportunity to correct the problem in the trial court.

We agree with the following statement of the Court of Appeal: On the correct application of the legal principles to the facts found by the trial judge, it is an inescapable conclusion that the respondents aided and abetted the offence of trafficking through distribution.

C.A., Jan. 12, 2011)(34132) May 17, 2013 The trial judge and the majority judges of the Court of Appeal were correct to require subjective fault.

However, in determining whether the correct standard has indeed been applied, an appellate court must take care not to substitute its own view of the facts for that of the trial judge.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the but - for test governed and the trial judge was correct in holding the plaintiff had not satisfied the onus.

The court concluded that the trial court's findings that the parties truly shared custody of the child were supported by the record, and, therefore, the trial court was correct in not applying the traditional relocation analysis to the parties» unique custody arrangement.

In Brown v. Wheeler, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the trial court judgment holding in favor of defendant because plaintiff failed to allege or show that: (1) landlord had actual knowledge or reason to know of the presence of chipping, peeling, and flaking lead paint and that such condition was hazardous, and (2) landlord was given reasonable opportunity to correct haCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the trial court judgment holding in favor of defendant because plaintiff failed to allege or show that: (1) landlord had actual knowledge or reason to know of the presence of chipping, peeling, and flaking lead paint and that such condition was hazardous, and (2) landlord was given reasonable opportunity to correct hacourt judgment holding in favor of defendant because plaintiff failed to allege or show that: (1) landlord had actual knowledge or reason to know of the presence of chipping, peeling, and flaking lead paint and that such condition was hazardous, and (2) landlord was given reasonable opportunity to correct hazard.

The court affirmed the trial court judgment holding in favor of defendant because plaintiff failed to allege or show that: (1) landlord had actual knowledge or reason to know of the presence of chipping, peeling, and flaking lead paint and that such condition was hazardous, and (2) landlord was given reasonable opportunity to correct hazard.