Sentences with phrase «court held in»

On October 11, 2016, the D.C. Circuit Court held in favor of PHH and stating that payments for bona fide services provided and made at fair market value do not violate RESPA.

The court held in the buyer's favour, finding that the seller had fraudulently concealed the hazard.

In a decision dated Dec. 28, 2017, Deputy Judge K.J. Brooks of the London Small Claims Court held in favour of Century 21 and Lachance.

[43] Although the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) does not refer to the word «society», the High Court held in Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria (2002) 214 CLR 422 that in order to satisfy the s. 223 references to traditional laws and customs, claimants must be members of a society which is united in and by its acknowledgement of those laws and customs.

The Ninth Circuit Court held in the case Syed v. M - I, LLC, that a prospective employer violates the FCRA when it procures a job applicant's consumer report after including a liability waiver in the same document as the statutorily mandated disclosure.

The UK Supreme Court held in [2018] UKSC 19 JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov late March.

More recently, the Court held in Voltage Pictures v John Doe and Jane Doe (the Teksavvy case) that the information could be disclosed but only under strict conditions about its use.

[144] Thus, this Court held in Moore v. Castlegar & District Hospital 1998 CanLII 4906 (BC CA), (1998), 49 B.C.L.R. (3d) 100, 103 B.C.A.C. 187, that it is not open to a trial judge to draw a common - sense inference of the cause of a medical condition where both parties have led expert medical evidence of causation.

In Massachusetts, for example, the Supreme Judicial Court held in In the Matter of a John Doe Grand Jury Investigation, 408 Mass. 480 (1990), that the privilege survived the death of the client.

The High Court held in favour of singer Rihanna last week over a passing off dispute with retailer Topshop about a T - shirt featuring a photo of the star taken during a video shoot in 2011, in Robin Rihanna Fenty v Arcadia Group Brands [2013] EWHC 2310 (Ch).

In this case, where the data sought to be produced is the analysis of blood taken from a person for medical purposes following a motor vehicle accident, the level of intrusiveness is high as this Court held in R. v. Taylor, 2013 ABCA 342, 561 A.R. 103 (which decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, [2014] S.C.J. No. 50).

In concluding that Hit Man is protected «advocacy,» the district court appears to have misperceived the nature of the speech that the Supreme Court held in Brandenburg is protected under the First Amendment.

A written attorney fee agreement that specifies only hourly rates but is not ambiguous can not be modified by evidence that the parties agreed orally to cap the fees, the Texas Supreme Court held in a Houston lawyer's almost decade - old case against a former client.

So, as the Supreme Court held in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), «The test is not the form in which state power has been applied but, whatever the form, whether such power has in fact been exercised.»

Consent to Settlement Agreement May Not Bar Negligence Claim - The Legal Intelligencer - In Guido v. Duane Morris LLP, the New Jersey Supreme Court held in a June 8 opinion that a client's consent to settlement does not necessarily bar a malpractice action arising from that settlement.

35 In addition, the Court held in paragraphs 29 and 30 of that judgment that the Austrian compensatory supplement has to be regarded as «non ‑ contributory», given that the costs are borne by a social institution which then receives reimbursement in full from the relevant Land, which in turn receives from the Federal budget the sums necessary to finance the benefit, and that at no time do the contributions of insured persons form part of this financing arrangement.

This Restatement provision states that» [o] ne who appropriates the commercial value of a person's identity by using without consent the person's name, likeness, or other indicia of identity for purposes of trade is subject to liability...» Relying on the Restatement, the Missouri Supreme Court held in TCI, 110 S.W. 3d at 369, that «the elements of a right of publicity action include: (1) That defendant used plaintiff's name as a symbol of his identity (2) without consent (3) and with the intent to obtain a commercial advantage.»

A Nova Scotia County Court held in 1929 that a 1752 treaty with the Micmacs was legally meaningless, basing this on a distinction between a «civilized nation» and «uncivilized people or savages.»

On February 21, 2018, the Supreme Court held in Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers that the anti-retaliation whistleblower protections under the Dodd - Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the «Dodd - Frank Act») apply only to those who have reported allegations to the Securities and Exchange Commission («SEC») as of the time of the allegedly retaliatory conduct.

Merlin Partners LP v. AutoInfo Inc., is the latest in a recent string of opinions by the Delaware Court of Chancery in which the Court held in appraisal proceedings that the merger consideration represented the best estimate of...

As to the first issue, the Court held in the affirmative.

In a clear blow to Quebec provincial regulators, the appeal court held in the much - anticipated ruling that regulatory bodies can not gain access to documents covered by litigation privilege unless it is statutorily mandated.

Class action legislation does not give courts jurisdiction over cases that would otherwise be dealt with by tribunals or arbitrators, the Supreme Court held in Concordia v. Bisaillon.

As the Illinois Supreme Court held in Board of Education of the City of Chicago v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 215 IL 118043: «A school district may refuse to arbitrate a grievance where: (1) there is no contractual agreement to arbitrate the substance of the dispute or (2) the dispute is not arbitrable under section 10 (b) of the Act because the subject matter of the dispute conflicts with Illinois law.»

However, it was unnecessary to hypothesize regarding past income and, as this Court held in Tedham, it was incumbent on the judge to award retroactive spousal support based on the parties» actual incomes.

The Florida State court held in Times Publishing Company v. City of Clearwater that private or personal e-mails fell outside the definition of public records, and could not be disclosed to a newspaper requesting it.

The court held in favour of the defendants.

Regarding the compensatory basis of support, in 1992, the Supreme Court held in Moge v. Moge that spouses are entitled to be compensated for contributions to the marriage, and for losses sustained as a consequence of the marriage: for example, as a result of staying out of the work force in order to raise children, or putting one's career goals on hold in order to accommodate a spouse's career.

On May 19, 2017, the Texas Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision in Lightning Oil Co. v. Anadarko E&P Onshore, LLC that an oil and gas operator does not commit trespass when...

In District Attorney's Office v Osborne («Osborne»), the Supreme Court held in a five against four decision that there «is no constitutional right to obtain post-conviction DNA testing, and that Alaska's procedure for DNA testing did not violate due process.»

The court held in People v. Zambia that the state's pandering law does, in fact, apply to a pimp who recruits a current prostitute to work for him.

l However, the court also recognised that, as the court held in Greenwich NHS Trust v London & Quadrant Housing Association [1998] 1 WLR 1749, in exceptional circumstances, an injunction requiring O to remove an obstruction would not be granted if there was an alternative way and there were strong public interest reasons why the alternative route was better.

In Wisconsin, the Supreme Court held in a 2001 case (Rabideau v. City of Racine 243 Wis. 2d 486, 627 N.W. 2d 795) that public policy precluded a pet owner's claim for emotional damages based upon the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress in connection with a negligent destruction of a companion dog.

The court held in an opinion issued Oct. 4, 2010 that

The Indiana Supreme Court held in Pfenning v. Lineman that participants in a sport owe a duty of care to other players based on «the range of ordinary behavior» in that particular sport.

As the UK Supreme Court held in HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) in July 2010, just as there is no benchmark to measure what constitutes «reasonable tolerability», there is none for «shame», but this is in the context that no straight person would require such a threshold, it is a natural consequence of the impact of, in this case, Stigma.

As the Court held in paragraph 70 of its ruling of 14 June 2016: «Participation by the Parliament in the legislative process is the reflection, at Union level, of a fundamental democratic principle that the people should participate in the exercise of power through the intermediary of a representative assembly.»

In particular, the Court held in paragraph 41 of its judgment in that case that

Second, the General Court held in both cases that the fact that the Iranian state holds shares in the banks did not imply, in itself, that they were facilitating nuclear proliferation.

The court held in that lawsuit that the «release and hold harmless» portion of the waiver was null and couldn't be presented to the jury.

The Supreme Court held in 2013 that earlier sanctions imposed on the Bank by HM Treasury were irrational and disproportionate, and the Bank's claim for damages against the Treasury under the Human Rights Act 1998 is listed for trial in the Commercial Court in October 2016.

Last month, the United States Supreme Court held in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons that it was non-infringing of copyright to import books into the United States that had been legally purchased elsewhere.

From a CEI write - up «The Supreme Court held in Armstrong v. United States that the Constitutional prohibition on uncompensated takings «was designed to bar government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.»

However, the Supreme Court held in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) that equal protection requirements apply to the federal government through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Zelman v. Simmons - Harris that school - voucher programs are consistent with the First Amendment's Establishment Clause when they serve a secular purpose and are neutral with respect to religion, and when aid goes to parents, who then choose where their child attends school.

Indeed, as the Supreme Court held in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn (2011), such an approach «assumes that income should be treated as if it were government property even if it has not come into the tax collector's hands....

In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court held in Bush v. Holmes that Gov. Jeb Bush's voucher program violated the state constitution.

This reasoning should not apply to scholarship tax credits which, as the U.S. Supreme Court held in ACSTOv.

In 1977, the court held in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that public employees could not be compelled to join a union but could be forced to pay «agency» fees, AKA «fair - share» fees, to help cover costs associated with collective bargaining.

Addressing the plaintiff's argument from First - Amendment rights, the Court held in contrast that the federal non-discrimination laws «do... not violate constitutionally protected rights of free association and privacy, or a parent's right to direct the education of his children.»