Sentences with phrase «court under clause»

(6) A proceeding that is transferred to another court under clause (1)(d) shall be titled in the court to which it is transferred and shall be continued as if it had been commenced in that court.

Not exact matches

and finally resolved by arbitration in the United States under Nevada State Law which will be deemed to be incorporated by reference into this clause, save for any waiver of any rights the parties would otherwise have to any form of appeal or recourse to a court of law or other judicial authority, which rights are expressly reserved.

A district court has held that a 2007 law amending the Texas Pledge of Allegiance to include the phrase «one state under God» does not violate the Establishment Clause.

Henceforth, the right to abort was to be understood as a liberty interest under the Due Process Clause, which included (so the plurality opinion of the Supreme Court said) «the right to define one's own concept of existence and to make the most basic decisions about bodily integrity.»

The court reasoned that property tax exemption differed from a tax subsidy — which would be impermissible under the entanglement principle of the free - exercise clause — because:

That's why the Court has to say that no reasonable person could say Congress had the relevant power under the Commerce Clause.

He also argues that parents exercise certain «sole and inviolable» lawmaking powers over their children in the areas of custody, care, upbringing, discipline, and education, which the Supreme Court has acknowledged in many cases under the due - process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

«The Court holds that denying civil marriage to same - sex couples violates their fundamental right to civil marriage under the due - process clause and their right to equal protection in the enjoyment...

Judge Graham expresses in his decision thoughts that by now should be quite familiar to our readers: «The Justices of the Supreme Court disagree among themselves on the proper role of religion in public life and the extent of the Court's authority to decide these issues under the Establishment Clause.

Under the test, first proposed by Supreme Court Justice Sandra O'Connor in a 1984 case from Pawtucket, Rhode Island, a display violates the Establishment Clause if it amounts to an official endorsement of religion, that is, if it suggests that the government approves a particular religious message (or disapproves such a message, though that issue does not regularly arise).

Like others who support the original understanding of the Constitution, I disagree with many of the Supreme Court's decisions under the establishment clause, but in our system of government a federal - district judge like Judge Jones is bound by those decisions.

«A restaurant or similar retail food establishment shall not be liable in any civil action in Federal or State court (other than an action brought by the United States or a State) for any claims arising out of an alleged violation of this clause or any State law permitted under section 403A (a)(4).»

Four justices (from the liberal wing of the court) held that the mandate to purchase insurance counted as a regulation of commerce under the Commerce Clause.

In practice, however, this is more murky, as courts have occasionally allowed the federal government to exercise powers in all sorts of different things under incredibly broad interpretations of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Since Bolling v. Sharpe, a Supreme Court decisions that came out the same day as Brown v. Board of Education, the 5th amendment's Due Process clause has been interpreted by the courts to also imply a guarantee of equal protection under federal law.

A second argument was made justifying Congress» action under the Commerce Clause, which as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court is arguably Congress» broadest authority.

«Under the present law, the courts will not make such a finding, but clause six would provide the courts with a justification for doing so.»

«Having concluded that the Commissioner's implementation and usage of Education Law... is not unconstitutional under either Due Process Clause, the Court obviously must conclude that the statute is not unconstitutional on its face,» Acting Supreme Court Justice Roger D. McDonough wrote in his ruling.

Wednesday's decision reversed a lower court ruling, and revived claims by Texas - based groups and individuals, including the McAllen Grace Brethren Church, that the regulation violated their rights under the First Amendment's free exercise clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The Loving Story (Unrated) Civil rights documentary recounting the events leading up to the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Loving vs. Virginia, the historic 1967 case declaring interracial marriage legal under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

The law, known as the Gun - Free School Zones Act, was struck down last fall by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which said that Congress exceeded its authority under the commerce clause of the Constitution when it made gun possession near public or private schools a federal offense.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled that his lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act was barred by an arbitration clause in his union contract.

While the United States Supreme Court has ruled that publicly funded school vouchers are constitutional under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, most state constitutions contain a version of the so - called «Blaine Amendment,» which bars state aid to parochial schools.

But if the U.S. Supreme Court determines that vouchers are allowed under the Establishment Clause, it is only a matter of time before the Court will be asked to settle these larger questions.

Teaching With Documents Lesson Plan: Documents Related to Brown v. Board of Education Use primary source material from the National Archives to learn about the 14th Amendment, primarily the equal protection clause, as well as the powers of the Supreme Court under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

Simulation # 5: In this simulation, students role play members of the U.S. Supreme Court and decide whether recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance in public school including the phrase «under God» violates the Establishment Clause.

In papers filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the teachers claimed that the layoff clause in their contract violated their equal - protection and due - process rights under the 14th Amendment and their right to protection from racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Sections 1981 and 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

In 2010, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that «under the education clause of the state constitution, public school children are entitled not just to a free and equal education but also to an adequate (quality) education, and the state must pay for it.»

After a change in U.S. Supreme Court Establishment Clause jurisprudence, the Alabama Supreme Court held that tuition grants to students attending private schools are constitutional under the First Amendment of U.S. Constitution and Alabama's Blaine Amendment (Article XIV, Section 263) because the aid goes to the student, not the school.

I finished my brief talk by mentioning that in the 2002 Zelman v. Simmons - Harris decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld voucher programs under the Constitution's Establishment Clause, because voucher money goes to the parents, not to the religious school.

However, the court went on to determine that the state's disbursement of benefits under the programs does «precisely what [the Aid Clause] forbids.»

The Florida court explained that although the program was allowed under the Establishment Clause, it violated the state's Blaine Amendment, which forbids Florida from directly or indirectly funding religious schools.

[v] To that end, the IDEA expressly authorizes states to provide services at private, including religious, schools [vi], and the U.S. Supreme Court has held that doing so is perfectly permissible under the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

In 2007 in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, the United States Supreme Court invalidated race - conscious plans in Seattle, Washington, and Louisville, Kentucky, finding that explicitly pursuing racial balance in K - 12 schools by using race as a criterion for admission and placement was impermissible under the Constitution's equal protection clause.

It found that its holding was consistent with the Indiana Supreme Court's decision in Meredith v. Pence, 984 N.E. 2d 1213, 1221 (Ind. 2013), which upheld an education choice program against a challenge brought under the Indiana constitution's school uniformity clause, which is similar to Nevada's.

The Florida public - school establishment is suing to repeal the Sunshine State's 13 - year - old school - choice tax credit and its new education savings accounts under the state's Blaine Amendment and its «uniformity clause,» which mandates that «Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools...» The Florida Supreme Court previously struck down the state's voucher program under this provision in Bush v. Holmes (2006), on the grounds that the vouchers «divert [ed] public dollars» from «the sole means set out in the Constitution for the state to provide for the education of Florida's children.»

There isn't one specific provision in the California constitution that's violated, exactly: Rather, the court identifies three «pertinent» clauses in the constitution: a guarantee of equal protection under the law, a provision ordering the legislature to encourage «intellectual [and] scientific improvement,» and a requirement that the legislature «provide for a system of common schools.»

The request comes after a California Superior Court struck down various teacher tenure and seniority statutes under that state's constitution and the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause in the Vergara v. California case.

We both also agree that any claim (and whether or not involving any personal injury) must be dealt with under the ABTA or AITO Arbitration Schemes (if the Scheme is available for the claim in question - see clause 14) or by the Courts of England and Wales only unless, in the case of Court proceedings, you live in Scotland or Northern Ireland.

I think there are institutional problems with courts» evaluating the length of confinement under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause; it's hard to see a good legal rule that courts can sensibly apply in a wide range of cases, and to my knowledge there isn't the sort of textual or original meaning evidence that strongly points to requiring courts to engage in such a mushy judgment.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court and concluded his majority opinion by declaring: «We hold that imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act violates the Constitution's guarantee of due process.»

In» «Adverse Impact Lite» Theory Available Under the ADEA, «Fox opines on the ruling's effect on the ADEA, Title VII, the RFOA clause, and the Supreme Court's 1991 decision in Ward Cove, before he adds:

[a] tax measure such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which is, according to the referring court's description of its history and purpose, intended to prevent excessive capital flow towards the Netherlands Antilles and to counter the appeal of that OCT as a tax haven, comes under the tax carve - out clause cited above and remains, consequently, outside the scope of application of Article 47 (1) of the [Seventh] OCT Decision, provided it pursues that objective in an effective and proportionate manner, which is a matter for the referring court to assess.

«The [Supreme] Court can reconcile these provisions by holding that the failure to respond to a notice under the confirmation procedure breaks the prohibited link between nonvoting and removal under the failure - to - vote clause,» DeWine said in his brief.

Such arguments did not constitute the strong and compelling grounds required to stay proceedings before the High Court under an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of foreign insolvency proceedings.

In this single case, and never since, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the protections offered by the Illinois long - arm statute and Illinois due process exceeded those of the federal due process clause under the Fourteenth Amendment, and that for the Illinois courts to assert personal jurisdiction over the officer on these facts was «not fair, just, and reasonable.»

The court did not elaborate upon this aspect in detail, which leaves uncertainty as to whether such a provision saves termination clauses under any instance of constructive dismissal.

Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution says that most of the the Supreme Court's jurisdiction must be exercised «under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.»

The Court pointed out that there is a «very strong legislative direction» under our arbitration statutes and numerous cases holding that the Court should only refuse to refer a matter to arbitration if it is clear that the dispute falls outside of the arbitration clause.

The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of the Federal Circuit that the disparagement clause [is] facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment's Free Speech Cclause [is] facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment's Free Speech ClauseClause.