Sentences with phrase «court opinions on the issue»

With a rise in state and local requirements regarding website accessibility, along with varying court opinions on the issue, businesses could be subject to inconsistent rules across jurisdictions.

Not exact matches

Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has not yet issued an opinion on the case.

The issues on which he was then tried and found wanting seem to have been so universally decided against him by the court of American and Christian opinion that they scarcely remain issues today.

Ironically, the 2016 — 2017 Supreme Court roundup also appearing in the October issue of First Things («A Less Corrupt Term») quotes Justice Samuel Alito saying of the Court's majority opinion on same - sex marriage that it «evidences... the deep and perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture's conception of constitutional interpretation.»

Not only does Bob not seem to understand the courts» duties, but he seems to ignore that public opinion on this issue is in fact changing more rapidly day by day.

On this issue, Bob assumes that the courts may wind up harming and not representing the prevailing general public opinion.

The opinions collected here» some dissenting from the majority of the Court, others concurring in judgment but rejecting the majority's reasoning» show how Scalia applies his textualism to these issues, and how it differs from competing theories of interpretation, most notably the «living Constitution» view favored by many on the left and the varieties of intentionalism favored by many conservatives and moderates.

On April 27, 2015, Chief Judge Christina Reiss of the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont issued an opinion that mostly favored the State of Vermont and the positions of GMO - labeling advocates.

In the absence of legislation on assisted dying, we have to establish the right to a doctor - assisted death through the courts but we also hope that Paul's case will help to stimulate public debate on this issue, and convince Parliament to listen to the massive majority opinion in this country and legalise assisted dying.»

On May 1, the Sixth Circuit issued a brief opinion, saying the U.S. District Court in Michigan was correct when it kept Gary Johnson, or any other Libertarian Party presidential candidate, off the ballot in November 2012.

The FEC on Sept. 16 issued an advisory opinion saying Martins could go back to those donors for a third $ 2,700 maximum for the Oct. 6 primary, but the next day the appellate court scrapped the unsual third election.

The «case or controversy» clause of the Constitution prohibits the courts not only from rewriting statutes, but from even issuing an advisory opinion on whether a law or action would be Constitutional were it to be implemented.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to issue its first major opinion on abortion in nearly 10 years on Monday, closing out a tumultuous term marred by the absence of one its judges.

A state court of appeals in February refused to issue an opinion on the lawsuit, and instead asked the supreme court to decide...

At pages 22 to 23 the Court continued: «Accordingly, by way of answer to issues (2) and (3) we are of the opinion that although the presence of the names of ineligible and deceased persons on the register of voters renders same neither reasonably accurate nor credible, the register is not thereby rendered inconsistent with article 45 (a) of the constitution.»

But Nader wants more than a few Congressional hearings: he wants really valuable information, like corporate records on file at the Securities and Exchange Commission, census data, and all the opinions issued by federal courts.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments on the Clean Power Plan challenge in September and is expected to issue an opinion sometime next year.

They argue that the proposed language regime unfairly favors English, French, and German, and have filed a complaint before the Court of Justice of the European Union, which will issue its opinion on Tuesday as well.

Grassroots advocacy, public opinion, proposed legislation, the looming state takeover of the Philadelphia schools, and a 2 - year - old court decision are fueling new momentum on an issue that state legislators have been reluctant to shoulder, activists say.

«The majority opinion turns entirely on procedural issues and did not address the trial court's findings that the constitutional rights of LAUSD's students would be violated without judicial intervention,» Sapp said.

On June 30, 1971, the three - judge District Court issued its opinion on the merits of the Mississippi challengOn June 30, 1971, the three - judge District Court issued its opinion on the merits of the Mississippi challengon the merits of the Mississippi challenge.

On Friday, April 28, the Court of Appeals issued a 34 - page opinion that upheld in full the trial court's ruling in favor of the parents and against the Anaheim Elementary School DistCourt of Appeals issued a 34 - page opinion that upheld in full the trial court's ruling in favor of the parents and against the Anaheim Elementary School Distcourt's ruling in favor of the parents and against the Anaheim Elementary School District.

The Court states no opinion on this issue as it is largely semantic and irrelevant to the disposition of this matter.

On June 26, 2012, the court issued an opinion which dismissed the challenges to the EPA's endangerment finding and the related GHG regulations.

replete with such language: it disdains the district court's «abrupt handling» of Appellant's first case; sarcastically refers to Appellant's previous counsel's «new - found appreciation for defendant's mental abilities;» criticizes the district court's «oblique language» on an issue unrelated to this appeal; states that the district court opinion in Jones «revealed a crabby and complaining reaction to Project Exile;» insinuates that the district court's concerns «require -LSB--RSB- a belief in the absurd that is similar in kind to embracing paranormal conspiracy theories;» and accuses Appellant of being a «charlatan» and «exploit [ing] his identity as an African - American.»

CSA 1991, s 40 (3) provides for disposal by the magistrates: «If, but only if, the court is of the opinion that there has been wilful refusal or culpable neglect on the part of the liable person it may (a) issue a warrant of commitment against him...», ie send him to prison.

In October 2017, the Commission issued a recommendation for a Council decision on the reopening of negotiations on a new agreement with Canada «in line with the requirements laid down by the Court's Opinion.»

Jay - Z argued, among other things, that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over alleged violations of Egyptian «moral rights,» but in an opinion issued on May 2, 2011, U.S. Judge Christina Snyder disagreed.

On July 26, 2017, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued Opinion 1/15 (the Opinion of the Advocate General on this case had been discussed previously in this blog, part I and part II) pursuant to Article 218 (11) TFEU on the draft agreement between Canada and the European Union (EU) dealing with the Transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data from the EU to CanadOn July 26, 2017, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued Opinion 1/15 (the Opinion of the Advocate General on this case had been discussed previously in this blog, part I and part II) pursuant to Article 218 (11) TFEU on the draft agreement between Canada and the European Union (EU) dealing with the Transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data from the EU to Canadon this case had been discussed previously in this blog, part I and part II) pursuant to Article 218 (11) TFEU on the draft agreement between Canada and the European Union (EU) dealing with the Transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data from the EU to Canadon the draft agreement between Canada and the European Union (EU) dealing with the Transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data from the EU to Canada.

While most of the curriculum at Harvard during this time consisted of lecture and student recitation, skills development was also provided in the form of weekly moot courts, during which students argued questions of law before professors and submitted occasional written disputations on legal subjects.121 Although Stearns had previously used moot courts in his teaching at Harvard, Story and Ashmun refined them.122 Cases were handed out the week before argument, and two counsel were assigned to each side.123 The cases would then be argued the next Friday, with the other students taking notes of the argument; the professor in charge that week would issue a written opinion.124

Prior to joining Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, he served as a Judicial Clerk to the Hon. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina where he prepared briefs and memoranda in preparation for judicial determination, provided research assistance, and drafted opinions and orders on a wide array of legal issues.

Depending on the appellate court's ruling, the trial court may rehear the case to deal with specific issues addressed in the appellate opinion.

Among other things, the Supreme Court of Canada highlighted the trial findings of negligence in continuing to issue clean audit opinions after knowing of deliberate deception by Livent management and what Deloitte itself characterised as «aggressive, if not questionable, accounting practices» on the part of Livent management.

On July 24, 2013, our Supreme Court denied rehearing in Dykes and issued a revised opinion adding a new footnote.

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court issued an opinion dismissing a plaintiff's appeal based on the plaintiff's failure to object to an alleged error at trial.

The practice center's main page includes federal and state court opinions related to e-discovery, federal and state rules and laws related to e-discovery, news and law reports, and BNA's E-Discovery Portfolio series, which provides an entry point to resources such as practice guides, books and treatises, and law reviews, as well as specific guidance on such issues as understanding and preventing spoliation.

Nothing in the opinion of this Court, therefore, may properly be regarded as an adjudication on the merits of the constitutional issues presented by these cases, which raise the question of the validity not of the private agreements as such, but of the judicial enforcement of those agreements.

Bank Saderat and Bank Mellat have not been appealed and the Court of Justice has not yet been asked directly to rule upon the intensity of the PMOI standard of review — thus, it remains to be seen how the Opinion in Kadi II will influence the Court of Justice's future view on this issue.

So what do Sotomayor's appellate opinions on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tell us about how her trial court experience shaped her rulings on expert witness isCourt of Appeals tell us about how her trial court experience shaped her rulings on expert witness iscourt experience shaped her rulings on expert witness issues?

In an opinion issued Friday, Richmond v. New Hampshire Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the two lower courts.

The Advocate General focused on the issue of whether the national court should take into account the content of the message of the calendar in making its assessment of the parody exception (para. 72 of the Opinion).

The issue came before the court on the question of whether it could publicly discuss the district court's reasoning given that the opinions were sealed.

It is common experience that it is advantageous to read all the available papers so as to gain an overview of the entire case rather than limit that task to the relatively small area that is truly relevant to the expert's own field for the expert evidence in a particular case must be given in relation to the whole case if the opinion is to be of real value to the court when it comes to decide on the issues before it.

A large number of federal appellate courts state on the face of their precedential opinions that the date on which the opinion issued is the date on which the case was decided.

On August 27, 2015, the Ohio Supreme Court resolved one aspect of this issue under Ohio law by holding in Felix v. Ganley Chevrolet, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2015 - Ohio - 3430, that plaintiffs alleging violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA) must show that all members of a putative class suffered injury or «damage in fact» as a result of the challenged conduct.

I probably should have noted this when it came out, but on October 28, 2015 the South Carolina Supreme Court, in Hudson v. Hudson, 414 S.C. 352, 778 S.E. 2d 482 (2015), dismissed as improvidently granted the writ of certiorari it issued to review the Court of Appeals opinion in Hudson v. Hudson, 408 S.C. 76, 757 S.E. 2d 727 (Ct..

On Friday, June 1, 2007, the Alabama Supreme Court issued an opinion affirming summary judgment on behalf of defendant Rockwell Automation, Inc. in a product liability lawsuit brought in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama in 200On Friday, June 1, 2007, the Alabama Supreme Court issued an opinion affirming summary judgment on behalf of defendant Rockwell Automation, Inc. in a product liability lawsuit brought in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama in 200on behalf of defendant Rockwell Automation, Inc. in a product liability lawsuit brought in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama in 2003.

In an interesting decision about retirement accounts the Kentucky Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Fraley v. Maxey on November 21, 2014 that allowed for a litigant to trace the increase in value of a portion of non-marital account.

On November 26, 2014 the Kentucky Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion related to the rights to a former spouse to collect against an insurance policy.

«I join the opinion of the Court on the understanding that (a) it goes no further than hold that a public school may restrict speech that a reasonable observer would interpret as advocating illegal drug use and (b) it provides no support for any restriction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue, including speech on issues such as «the wisdom of the war on drugs or of legalizing marijuana for medicinal use.»»