Sentences with phrase «court testimony requires»

A few weeks north, a few weeks south, longer when casework or court testimony requires.

Not exact matches

The Securities and Exchange Commission said it's seeking a court order requiring Shawn Carter — better known as Jay - Z — to comply with a subpoena for testimony.

«These actions, as well as testimony that Percoco required employees to obtain his permission to leave State employment and otherwise attempted to control their post-State-service employment, also demonstrate Percoco's control over State employees, making it more likely that Percoco directed State employees to take official action,» a letter from prosecutors to U.S. District Court Judge Valerie Caproni stated.

Because a fundamental component of the job description is providing expert witness testimony, knowledge of the role of an expert witness and court structure in Ontario is also required.

(b) If the respondent named in a charge filed under section 706 fails or refuses to comply with a demand of the Commission for permission to examine or to copy evidence in conformity with the provisions of section 709 (a), or if any person required to comply with the provisions of section 709 (c) or (d) fails or refuses to do so, or if any person fails or refuses to comply with a demand by the Commission to give testimony under oath, the United States district court for the district in which such person is found, resides, or transacts business, shall, upon application of the Commission, have jurisdiction to issue to such person an order requiring him to comply with the provisions of section 709 (c) or (d) or to comply with the demand of the Commission, but the attendance of a witness may not be required outside the State where he is found, resides, or transacts business and the production of evidence may not be required outside the State where such evidence is kept.

In this era (especially in civil cases) where your initial or main testimony is required by the rules of court to be in writing and sworn before the commissioner for oaths, you need to go through same properly before and after it is sworn to by you.

The court distinguished the recent Supreme Court's decision in Crawford v. Metro Gov» t of Nashville and Davidson County, Tenn., 129 SCt 846 (2009), (which abrogated the 6th Circuit's view that the opposition clause required active, consistent behavior), by stating that Crawford involved involuntary testimony while Thompson did not engage in any protected acticourt distinguished the recent Supreme Court's decision in Crawford v. Metro Gov» t of Nashville and Davidson County, Tenn., 129 SCt 846 (2009), (which abrogated the 6th Circuit's view that the opposition clause required active, consistent behavior), by stating that Crawford involved involuntary testimony while Thompson did not engage in any protected actiCourt's decision in Crawford v. Metro Gov» t of Nashville and Davidson County, Tenn., 129 SCt 846 (2009), (which abrogated the 6th Circuit's view that the opposition clause required active, consistent behavior), by stating that Crawford involved involuntary testimony while Thompson did not engage in any protected activity.

For the Court of Appeal, while no expert testimony was specifically required to prove distress, something more was required to show the distress suffered by Mr. Lau went beyond «normal distress» associated with termination.

Arbitration often considers written documents like letters and witness statements in circumstances where courts in the U.S. would require in - person testimony (this is less of a consideration outside the U.S. where the hearsay rule is much less strict or is non-existent).

«Disagreeing with the trial court's grant of summary judgment, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that 3 incidents over two years, combined with other testimony showing continuing problems in the workplace, is enough to require a jury [to] sort out whether a restaurant should be held liable for sexual harassment...&rcourt's grant of summary judgment, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that 3 incidents over two years, combined with other testimony showing continuing problems in the workplace, is enough to require a jury [to] sort out whether a restaurant should be held liable for sexual harassment...&rCourt of Appeals has held that 3 incidents over two years, combined with other testimony showing continuing problems in the workplace, is enough to require a jury [to] sort out whether a restaurant should be held liable for sexual harassment...»

AB 389 of 2015 and the identical SB 231 provide that a court shall permit the use of a facility dog when, in a criminal proceeding involving the testimony of a vulnerable witness, the court determines by a preponderance of the evidence that it is likely that such witness will be unable to effectively communicate if required to testify without the presence of such facility dog and that the presence of such facility dog will facilitate such testimony.

In fact, some types of personal injury cases actually require the testimony of an expert witness before you can even bring a lawsuit before the court.

The court usually requires the presence of witnesses at trial if their testimony concerns facts which are disputed.

Some Illinois Appellate Courts have allowed photographs to be admitted into evidence, but would require expert testimony to correlate the extent of the damage to the vehicles to the injuries to the drivers and passengers.

For example, Texas courts in particular require expert testimony establishing causation when proving toxic torts in personal injury cases or they will dismiss the case.

The standards deriving from Rule 702, however, require trial court judges to act as «gatekeepers» in the determination of whether or not expert testimony is relevant and reliable.

However, in cases involving preexisting medical conditions, Georgia court have generally held that «[a] causal connection, requiring expert medical testimony, must be established where the «potential continuance of a disease» is at issue.»

In partially granting the defendant's motion to bar the testimony, the court provides a nice gloss on the required showings for getting expert opinions into evidence in Federal courts.

The Court determined that New Mexico law generally requires an expert witness as to medical causation, but such testimony is not necessary when exceptional circumstances that are within common experience or knowledge of the average person are present.

In recent cases handed down by the Indiana Supreme Court (Bennett v. Richmond, 960 N.E. 2d 782 (Ind. 2012); Person v. Shipley, 962 N.E. 2d 1192 (Ind. 2012)-RRB-, we see challenges to expert testimony that went too far with arguments for more stringent requirements than are required under IRE 702.

It's worth noting, we've been an «expert witness» testimony for the courts on behalf of those who have diabetes and who are required by law to secure life insurance for a divorce decree.

• Confer with clients and attorneys to acquire information of committed crime • Analyze facts and ensure that they are documented properly • Conduct investigations to support the legal defense of a wide variety of criminal cases • Contact external agencies and expert witnesses as reference resources for potential testimony • Serve subpoenas on those required to testify or submit evidence before the court • Operate and maintain a variety of photographic and projection equipment to assist in criminal investigation • Handle potentially explosive situations with tact, ensuring the safety and wellbeing of all people involved • Create and submit reports regarding findings such as statements, scene descriptions and analysis of physical evidence

The district court, in and for the county in which any hearing is held, may compel the attendance of witnesses, the giving of testimony and the production of books and papers as required by any subpoena issued by the Board.

However, if both spouses agree to the divorce and qualify for a simplified dissolution, the court hearing often does not require testimony from witnesses or discussion of evidence presented by either party.

Subpoena: A legal summons requiring that one appear in court as a witness to give testimony.

In a litigated case, temporary needs are usually handled in a lengthy court hearing requiring testimony of both parties, in addition to the possibility of two financial experts and mental health professionals testifying on child issues.

TOPEKA — A Kansas legislative committee heard passionate testimony Tuesday from people both for and against a bill that would require courts to order shared custody and parenting of children in most divorce cases.