Sentences with phrase «court accepted both arguments»

Regardless of whether courts accept that argument, the tech companies could also face liability under certain state or local anti-discrimination statutes.

The high court accepted this argument, saying the rules presented «a disproportionate interference with a genuine spousal relationship».

If the Supreme Court accepts these arguments, New York's government unions could lose up to $ 110 million a year in agency fee revenue from non-members right off the bat.

The appeals court accepted this argument even though the Supreme Court had acknowledged similar circumstances in 1983 (Mueller v. Allen) when it upheld a Minnesota program that gave a tax deduction to parents for tuition and other education expenses.

The court accepted the argument of the UK government that immunity of the Saudi state and its officials from legal action in UK courts, which had been upheld by the House of Lords, did not violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

The court accepted both arguments, and dismissed the action.

Instead, based on the pleadings, it objectively gave the background of a court case, quoted a novel legal argument raised in one of the parties» pleadings, and explained the legal significance to all Ohio lawyers if the court accepts that argument.

The High Court accepted that argument but the Court of Appeal did not.

If the court accepts the argument presented the Judge can impute a weekly income to the father which will generate a weekly child support obligation.

Not exact matches

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice accepted the argument, adding that Linamar was entitled to take reasonable steps to protect its reputation.

That is because the Tax Court accepted the taxpayer's argument that it need not share stock - based compensation costs under a qualified cost - sharing agreement because arm's length parties would not do so.

Kirsten: There's an article in The New York Times about Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens basically making this argument that for the first 200 years of the country it was just accepted that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a well - regulated militia.

The reasons for accepting it do not form the kind of deductive proof we require in logic or pure mathematics, but they resemble the arguments used in a court of law to establish innocence or culpability.

While dismissing the arguments relating to the first two of those values, the Court accepted that the barrier raised against others by a veil concealing the face in public could undermine the notion of «living together».

Judge Denise Casper didn't accept that argument, but she also didn't prevent them from returning to court with their allegations later, says Paul Rothstein, a professor of torts, evidence, and civil litigation at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C. «The court is plainly telling these people to raise all their arguments in the administrative proceeding that is still ongoing,» he says.

In the 1972 decision in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, the Court accepted to a considerable degree the argument that the funding of schools primarily through local property taxes resulted in significant differences in school spending and quality from district to district.

In particular, the fact that voucher programs involve a subsidy to religious schools could complicate the analysis, because the Court has occasionally accepted the argument that the failure to provide a subsidy for an activity or institution does not itself constitute impermissible discrimination.

The trial court accepted the plaintiff's argument that restricting the scholarships to secular subjects at religiously - affiliated schools would not suffice because religion can pervade all subjects at such schools.

The court explicitly accepted the argument that the primary beneficiaries of the aid were the children rather than the schools they attend.

But their arguments could become relevant on the national stage when they contend the Colorado Supreme Court ruling, by prohibiting private religious K - 12 schools from accepting vouchers, is on a collision course with the federal First and Fourteenth Amendments.

But no court has accepted this argument because, now that public schools no longer have a Protestant character, the Blaine Amendments no longer function in a way that favors or disfavors particular religious groups.

The attorney for PHEAA said, «As you know a lot of Courts attempted to pursue undue hardship and find undue hardship in order to get at a partial discharge, and that's a tendency that has to be resisted, and it has to be resisted in this case because the debtor has to meet each and every one of the prongs in order to first find undue hardship and so, you know, we can understand why Judge Radcliffe may have gone to accept the Debtor's argument.»

For example, he said, the idea that EPA itself could sell permits — an argument that hinges on its system avoiding the legal label of a «tax» — is asking a lot of the courts to accept.

Finally, the Court did accept the argument of the Dutch government and the Commission that a time limit should apply.

The president of the Queens Bench Division was, however, unimpressed by an argument which, if accepted, would involve «a massive and unwarranted leap for the court to make».

However, the General Court accepted Gifi's argument that the Board failed to examine all the evidence it had produced, and the Board's judgment did not mention several of the designs cited: «In the present case, it is clear that, in the light of the Board of Appeal's assertion that it was required to re-examine the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety, followed by a one - by - one examination of the contested design in relation only to Designs D 1 to D 17, it is impossible to infer from the wording of the contested decision, or the context in which it appears, what is the implied reasoning justifying the failure to take into account Designs D 18 to D 22.»

The BC Court of Appeal overturned the arbitrator's decision and accepted the employer's arguments that if there is individualized testing, there can not be discrimination.

These were to address one or more of eight issues seen as important to courts: form - filling — making court documents more accessible to litigants in person; order drafting — creating orders that are more likely to be accepted by courts; continuous online hearing — challenging the question of whether a court is a place or a service; argument - building — to aid non-lawyers in creating well - structured arguments, distinguishing fact from law; outcome prediction — using technology to answer the natural question «what are my chances of winning?»

The court accepted the husband's arguments as to the wife's level of self - sufficiency, and changed the order accordingly.

Appellate Briefs, provides an advance look at cases accepted for argument by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

The court accepted AM's case that some kind of live - in help was justified and rejected the father's argument that, as a single mother without paid employment, AM should manage everything on her own.

The Court did, however, accept the Parliament's argument based on Article 218 (10) TFEU, and considered that the principle of democracy calls for a broad interpretation of that provision.

The difficulty with that argument was, as the appeal judge accepted, virtually all appellate judges and many High Court judges are not at the aforesaid face.

This was the argument which the British Columbia Court of Appeal accepted.

As to renegotiations, it seems that accepting such an argument would be highly unlikely in light of the case law of the Court.

The Internet Cases blog writes here that in Major v. McAllister, the Missouri court «refused to accept a website end user's argument that she should not be bound by the website terms and conditions that were presented to her in the familiar «browsewrap» format,» i.e., a visible link that read, «By submitting you agree to the Terms of Use.»

The court did, however, note the College's argument that non-visual evidence has been accepted in criminal cases of sexual assault, and in regulatory cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct by health professionals.

In allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the motions judge, a unanimous Court of Appeal panel accepted the appellant's argument that Rule 15.02 (4), a rule designed to terminate proceedings where a named plaintiff has not authorized commencement, had no application.

Courts have accepted their arguments that «the Privilege» (as I like to call it) should not apply to tax accountants, patent agents, notaries or paralegals, even if those professionals are providing the same advice that lawyers would.

The court did not accept Economical and Crystal Clean's argument for the following reasons.

Any confirming or follow - up written communication should set forth all of the arguments in opposition to the alleged claims, so that, in the event settlement can not be consummated, the communication can serve as an answer to the complaint (in many Small Claims Courts, a formal answer is not required and the Court will readily accept a letter setting forth the defendants» arguments), and be used as an outline for oral argument.

The French Supreme Courtdecided that the Paris Court of Appeal erred in law, by accepting the argument that there was no other EU - operator active or willing to be active on the relevant market and thereby there was no effect on inter-state trade.

The Court of Appeal agreed with Judge Blair's firm rejection of the argument that silence should be understood as a refusal to accept the contents of the letter.

He accepted an invitation to a May 1 reception at Georgetown University Law Center, where he had helped prepare other lawyers for upcoming Supreme Court arguments.

We accept citations to primary legal authorities (court decisions) and short, concise arguments in favor of cited authorities, along with community voting of responses.

«If that argument had been accepted,» says Toyne, «it would have almost been encouraging people to render compliance with court orders impossible in order to insulate themselves from a finding of contempt.»

In fact, the Court accepted the defence argument in finding both complainants not credible.

The Ontario Court of Appeal accepted this argument and the Appellant's convictions for Assault and Assault with a Weapon were overturned and an acquittal entered.

It was accepted that it did not materially add to the arguments under Article 14 but the court agreed that it was important that it was determined and that it would be undesirable for the arguments involved, which had significant overlap with those in the judicial review, to be determined elsewhere, i.e. in a County Court discrimination ccourt agreed that it was important that it was determined and that it would be undesirable for the arguments involved, which had significant overlap with those in the judicial review, to be determined elsewhere, i.e. in a County Court discrimination cCourt discrimination claim.

This argument was accepted by the Administrative Court [2015] EWHC 601 (Admin).