Sentences with phrase «court got its facts»

Not exact matches

«As CEO, you didn't know some key facts,» said Debbie Dingell, a Michigan Democrat, ticking off a list of questions Zuckerberg said he'd get back to members on, from «major court cases regarding your privacy policy» to «all the kinds of information Facebook is collecting from its own users.»

Trump's lawyers have made a number of arguments to try to get Zervos's suit dismissed, but the most important has to do with the fact that Zervos is suing in New York state court.

In fact, they fight in court for years to get their kids back.

You got ta love the fact that they made the court look like the outside of a Hornets nest.

before i get trolled... i'm not saying oubre is better than otto, but given our current front court setup and the fact that otto plays like a tweener, i prefer to have oubre play the 3 than i am with otto playing the 4.

This has already caused uproar with Labour decrying the fact that all levy money was Labours in full and Labour would go to court to get it.

«That you, lsah Hamman Misau of Hamman Misau Residence, Turaki Street, Misau, Bauchi State, on or about August 10, 2017, at Abuja and other part of Nigeria within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did make a false statement of fact to wit: that police officers pay as much as two million, five hundred thousand naira (N2.5 m) to get special promotion and posting through the Police Service Commission as published in the Daily Trust Newspaper dated August 10, 2017, knowing that such false statement of fact would harm the reputation of Mr. Ibrahim Kpotun ldris (the serving Inspector - General of Police), the Nigeria Police Force and the Police Service Commission and you thereby committed an offense.

Many summers in fact, though I never did get over my fear of King of the Court, and my hand - eye coordination has always been supremely mediocre.

Sadly, what gets all but lost is the fact that, even in the absence of Whitacre's ethically - compromised court testimony, the government was still able to get convictions of several top executives and to eradicate the financial chicanery in the agri - business industry.

Sharon (Candice Bergen), a Supreme Court justice, still hasn't gotten over her divorce and hates the fact that her ex-husband is dating a woman young enough to be his daughter.

In fact, Miller v. Skumanick (eventually Miller v. Mitchell in the appeals court) got even more interesting because the prosecutor told the dozen students caught up in the affair, that he would not prosecute them if they accepted school suspension, submitted to drug tests, wrote an essay about their infractions, and attended a five - week re-education program in which they would admit that what they did was wrong and — for the girls — had learned what it meant to be a girl in today's society.

The state legislature should take note of the fact that we had to take the DOE to court to get the public's voice heard as prescribed by law.»

In case, you sell a property booked by you after getting the registration done or taking the possession then the Tax treatment in such case will depend on the facts of the case, as there are conflicting views and court judgements.

Try suing someone for harm from CO2 emissions in a court of law, based on facts and not any special laws and see how far you get.

When Greens sue to overturn the new result, those same summarized facts get into the court record.

Because for all the administration's claims that it can deliver on its commitments regardless, the fact remains that even under the most optimistic outlook — if the Supreme Court's stay were to melt away and the Power Plan were to work impeccably — current policies do not get us there.

Heck, the newest member of the SCC even wrote about the subject of the SCC, Clements, and «material contribution in the — get this — Supreme Court of Canada Law Review: Russell Brown, «Cause - in - Fact at the Supreme Court of Canada: Developments in Tort Law in 2012 - 2013» (2014), 64 S.C.L.R. (2d) 327.

It's not like you can get a court to resolve the question in the moment of any recording, and if you try to take action through the legal system after the fact, (a) it's clearly interfering with the police work and (b) it's not going to help you be able to continue recording whatever it is you wanted to record in the first place.

Nor did he try to get the petition dismissed, and in fact misled the court.

Client then won a county bar fee arbitration and a later superior court bench trial against attorney, where attorney got no relief (and in fact an indication that client overpaid after prior judgment enforcement although client never cross-complained).

The details may start to pile up, but the fact that they can get muddled is exactly why it's important to straighten them out — for your sake and to court investors.

In fact, Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin recently made a similar argument, telling the Toronto Star that ``... the difficulty we have with racial minorities, indigenous people is that we're just beginning this process of getting the judges in place on the trial benches and so on.»

You might try to deny it, but it's the truth, and if you can't get your head around that fact, you need to stay out of court.

The Court seems to me to get it right in saying that the statutory provisions about how it affects border - crossing fact situations are not relevant when people outside the province have adopted Ontario law generally.

Writing a great brief isn't easy, but you want enough credibility and transparency that the court knows exactly where you're coming from, and they don't need to go to the defense brief to get the facts, the relevant law, or to check to see if you've characterized the defense position accurately.

As we reported, legal blogger Dwight Sullivan pointed out that the Court had gotten its facts wrong in stating that Congress had chosen not to make child rape a capital offense, when in reality, in 2006, Congress amended the Uniform Code of Military Justice to add child rape to the military death penalty.

If in fact Claiborn is moot, there might be a way to still get guidance from the Court on the proportionality principle if there is a single opinion being written (i.e. there is not one opinion being written in Rita and another being written in Claiborne).

A is accused of having murdered her twin sister B. Plenty of evidence, A goes to court - then it is found that the police got it wrong, in fact A was murdered by B, and the person in court is B, not A.

In fact, the courts and the defence bar have in the past been critical of the Crown for not having a robust system of «file ownership,» where the rights of the accused have been breached precisely because serious cases got passed from Crown to Crown in order to accommodate competing commitments.

If, however, you were convicted, and the Court found that you knew that the victim hadn't died at the time of trial, but you did not raise the fact that the victim wasn't dead, it isn't clear if you could have the original conviction vacated because it was a fair trial and you knew evidence sufficient to get yourself acquitted (which you may have refrained from presenting to avoid conviction on a lesser charge like kidnapping or aggravated assault), and the status of an «actual innocence» grounds for vacating a conviction after trial is hotly disputed, conservatives like the late Justice Scalia generally say «no», liberals generally say «yes», moderates like to say «yes» but make it almost impossible to establish except in rare cases like one where a live person walks in when there was a murder conviction for killing that actually living person.

It used to be that whether you were licensed or not, you'd go into court and you'd argue that this person hadn't paid rent and if nobody brought up the fact that you didn't have a license, you'd get your eviction.

«The fact is, almost all cases settle before trial,» says Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola with the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. «That means judges» and magistrate judges» rulings on discovery never get expiation on appeal.

Understanding the dynamics of the legal issues for getting a case affirmed or reversed on appeal is just as important as the facts and law in the trial court below.

In fact, Superior Court Justice Eva Frank reached out to PBLO about perhaps getting amicus counsel recently when faced with an unrepresented defendant in a complex civil sexual assault case.

Basically if you do not agree with the factual finding of a judge, i.e. what you did or did not do wrong, the BC Court of Appeal will not interfere with the trial judge and will uphold his or her judgement unless he / she clearly got the facts wrong — and to a degree that the entire judgment would fall because of that error.

It's a simple fact that Lawyers» names get associated with court decisions, and potentially court documents.

No matter the approach, parties should carefully consider the claim language, the patent as a whole, the state of the art, the person skilled in the art and work with their experts to get their facts and arguments before the court.

Traditionally, the main point of freedom of speech was that a court couldn't stop you from saying something, but could only seek to punish you after the fact (and for that you get a jury, a public hearing, etc.) But more recently, courts realized that subsequent punishment had similar effects to prior restraint.

Familiarity promotes comfort and confidence that the court is «getting it right» in close cases with complex fact patterns.

That lets the appeal court, if it wants to, find the rationale in the cases, or say the judge got the law right but misapplied it to the facts.

While jury trials are the ultimate trial - court challenge, this is in fact a book that at its core is about shattering your view of yourself as an attorney and getting you to realize how you really come across (to a jury but also to the judge and everyone else).

-LSB-...] The only way Oracle could counter such testimony is by calling Judges O'Malley, Plager, and Taranto as witnesses to tell the jury that the Court got it completely wrong, and in fact that the declaring code and SSO are copyrightable.

It is critical to get your facts straight and stand strong in court.

In fact, for those who're a repeat culprit, the difficulties do mount, but to quote a few real instances: A man charged with DUI got here to court docket.

However, the court held that the bar did not breach any duty to the plaintiff, since the fact that the man got into his car and struck the plaintiff was not a foreseeable result of the bar owner's actions.

Bob Battle separates the myths from the facts and reveals how to get your reckless driving case successfully resolved, in many cases without you ever having to appear in court.

I think very practically we see a lot of law firm lawyers encourage their junior associates to volunteer with us because we will give them an opportunity to get hands - on experience, working directly with clients, conducting interviews, gathering facts and then presenting them both in briefing and in oral argument to a court, much faster than a typical defense side large law firm context might provide.

The decision of whether or not an accused gets out on bail will be based on all relevant facts, but most times the court will look at things like:

We get the ACTUAL court documents so we can tell you that this person is in fact a real trial lawyer.

«In fact, the week we launched we got a call from a state Supreme Court justice who applauded the project.»