Sentences with phrase «courts of law rather»

Whenever possible, it is usually in a plaintiff's interest to have a case filed in a court of law rather than through arbitration.

Many brokers have reached the conclusion that they are more likely to obtain a just decision in a court of law rather than in an arbitration.

Not exact matches

Uber's loss follows an earlier one last year where the Luxembourg - based Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) classified the company as a transport service rather than a digital one, which stripped it of protections against undue national regulation that digital services enjoy under EU law.

«Attempts now to rewrite the story of this hate crime appear to be based on untrustworthy sources, factual errors, rumors and innuendo rather than the actual evidence gathered by law enforcement and presented in a court of law,» the spokesperson said.

Great — so, either these four young men never were abused, but simply saw an opportunity to shake down an individual with a questionable reputation (the «where there's smoke» strategy), and Pastor Long either caved in to the pressure, or sought an expedient route (possibly used before) to make the problem go away; OR, these really are four young men who've been abused, but rather than make the pastor answer for what he did to them in a court of law, and spare other young men in the future the trauma they experienced, they allowed their silence to be bought.

So I shall use the word «appraisal» in the remainder of this chapter, rather than the word «judgement»; the latter fails seriously, for us today at any rate, because it is so tied up with notions of law - courts, assizes, and the other paraphernalia of «justice» in the legal sense.

What is more, they can be greatly helped if they see that this is indeed the chief stress in public prayer or church worship, so that such social praying is undertaken by a family of God's children addressing a loving Father (who makes demands upon them, to be sure, but who is no hateful dictator nor absentee ruler nor moral tyrant, but genuinely concerned for their best development as his children), rather than a kind of law - court or imperial audience with a terrifying deity.

He asks, rather, that when attacked we refrain from retaliation; that we not settle our disputes in courts of law; that we give to those who beg and lend to those who would borrow, and that we pray for our enemies.

«Attempts now to rewrite the story of this hate crime appear to be based on untrustworthy sources, factual errors, rumors and innuendo rather than the actual evidence gathered by law enforcement and presented in a court of law.

If you're interested in digging deeper, you might like knowing that Wake Forest University has published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law (rather than history) of separation of church and state — as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere.

Actually, after this rather stupid decision by our Supreme Court that now invokes religion into the basics of secular law, yes... I am sad.

In his ruling, N.Y. Supreme Court justice Manuel Mendez wrote, «New York State penal law does not refer to «wagering» or «betting,» rather it states that a person, «risks something of value.

When they arrive in court, many try to explain the treatment they received, but in contravention of international law judges typically asked them to prove the torture rather than ensure the allegations were investigated.

The Military High Command in Accra has promised never to retaliate following the killing of one of their men but rather would ensure that investigations are professionally conducted so that those found culpable would be tried in the law court.

Claims by the Secretary of State for Wales that the current devolution settlement does not need major changes are misguided and could help to entrench an unsatisfactory system in place where the courts become the final arbiter of laws rather than the electorate, the Welsh Liberal Democrats Assembly Member, Peter Black has said.

The way to resolve this is by way of a new wild mammals welfare law that would address such situations and any accusations of causing unnecessary suffering would then be tested in court on the basis of evidence, rather than prejudice or ignorance.

«Anyone who has a case against any man of God should swear an oath, proceed to the law court and face the rigours, rather than engage in media trial and character assassination, which have become the hallmark of this administration.»

All three cases involved a common issue — a new definition by the Supreme Court requiring a formal exercise of government power rather than just a meeting or phone call to prove a quid pro quo bribery scheme under the federal law prohibiting «honest services fraud.»

In April, the California Court of Appeal overturned the trial court's ruling in Vergara v. California [i], in which a group of families had challenged the constitutionality of state laws governing teacher tenure [ii](California state law automatically grants tenure to teachers after sixteen months, provides extra due process protections to teachers over and above those available to other state workers, and requires schools to use seniority rather than competency in layoff decisiCourt of Appeal overturned the trial court's ruling in Vergara v. California [i], in which a group of families had challenged the constitutionality of state laws governing teacher tenure [ii](California state law automatically grants tenure to teachers after sixteen months, provides extra due process protections to teachers over and above those available to other state workers, and requires schools to use seniority rather than competency in layoff decisicourt's ruling in Vergara v. California [i], in which a group of families had challenged the constitutionality of state laws governing teacher tenure [ii](California state law automatically grants tenure to teachers after sixteen months, provides extra due process protections to teachers over and above those available to other state workers, and requires schools to use seniority rather than competency in layoff decisions.)

They should show respect for Supreme Court interpretations of civil rights law, rather than devise clever end - runs around them.

32 The New Hampshire Supreme Court likewise rejected the standing of petitioners challenging the state's scholarship tax credit law, ruling that they could not demonstrate any harm.33 The following year, citing the decisions in Arizona and New Hampshire, the Alabama Supreme Court also held that a «tax credit to a parent or a corporation... can not be construed as an «appropriation»» but rather such funds retain their status as private funds until they enter the public treasury.34 That view seems to be the prevailing one in courts, so with the possible exception of Michigan, where the state constitution explicitly prohibits tax benefits for religious education, tax credits should survive scrutiny under such provisions.

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.»

Congress added a little more confusion in 2016 when a change was made so that special category federal employees (i.e., law enforcement officers, firefighters, Customs and Border Protection Officers, Air Traffic Controllers, Supreme Court and Capitol Police Officers, Nuclear Materials Couriers, and DSS Special Agents in the State Department) had a dividing line of 50, rather than 55 for penalty free withdrawals from their TSP accounts.

Or rather Sido won in both arenas, with then - governor Jerry Brown signing a law that overturned the portion of the owner's will calling for the dog's death and the courts» declaring that disposition of a living creature in a will was different from the disposition of nonliving property.

The utility argued that public power companies are shielded from antitrust laws, rather than defending the merits of their discriminatory behavior in court.

Granted, i'm no expert on this specific legal technicality, but as they deliberatley broke the FOI law, i was under the impression that they'd be charged under said law, rather than contempt of court??

[i] Privilege being the jurisdiction of the courts, it would be for the law societies to reconcile the confidentiality rule rather than to pretend to the authority to change privilege

Rather, Kerr writes that Ginsburg «seems to believe that she has a legitimate interest in her capacity as a Supreme Court Justice to push co-equal branches of government to enact a new law that will be more to her personal liking.»

Although the Court of Appeal shared the sympathies which Mr Justice McCombe had previously expressed for police officers «who have to confront day in and day out the realities of life rather than the black letter law which this court has to apply» (see Bonner v DPP [2004] EWHC 2415 (Admin), [2004] All ER (D) 74 (Oct)-RRB-, it recognised, as indeed it must, that if the law were to be changed, it was to be achieved by Parliament using the legislative process rather than by the courts according the statutory provision a «liberal» (or illiberal) interpretaCourt of Appeal shared the sympathies which Mr Justice McCombe had previously expressed for police officers «who have to confront day in and day out the realities of life rather than the black letter law which this court has to apply» (see Bonner v DPP [2004] EWHC 2415 (Admin), [2004] All ER (D) 74 (Oct)-RRB-, it recognised, as indeed it must, that if the law were to be changed, it was to be achieved by Parliament using the legislative process rather than by the courts according the statutory provision a «liberal» (or illiberal) interpretacourt has to apply» (see Bonner v DPP [2004] EWHC 2415 (Admin), [2004] All ER (D) 74 (Oct)-RRB-, it recognised, as indeed it must, that if the law were to be changed, it was to be achieved by Parliament using the legislative process rather than by the courts according the statutory provision a «liberal» (or illiberal) interpretation.

In that sense, the Court's approach is grounded in its hallmark effet utile reasoning, by placing emphasis on the need for effectiveness of EU law rather than on deference to national procedural law.

Moreover, it allowed the Court to avoid having to address the question of the (il) legality of not only the EU's, but also Morocco's conduct in light of international law (see, eg, the rather critical Opinion of AG Wathelet, paras 143ff).

Through tradition and custom, rather than any specific law, the defendant will remain in the dock, usually located at the back of court, (a position that has come under challenge in the European Court of Human Rigcourt, (a position that has come under challenge in the European Court of Human RigCourt of Human Rights).

Should not any serious autonomy analysis be based on the rule of law realities of the internal market rather than on constitutional rhetoric?First step would be to acknowledge that the Court or EU law can not wipe away the various rule of law problems?

In its recent ruling in Egenberger (C - 414 / 16), the Court's Grand Chamber has redrawn the boundaries of a constitutional problem German courts are rather familiar with: the horizontal application of the right not to be discriminated against in situations coming within the scope of EU law.

If arbitration clauses in intra-EU BITs adversely affect EU law, then there is little point in discussing whether or not the Court's conclusion is justified in light of arbitral practice — it's time to move on and to understand what will happen next, rather than to analyse whether there actually is or should be room for investment arbitration in intra-EU relations as a matter of EU law.

For instance, although neighboring Maryland's DWI law purports to cover vehicles rather than only motor vehicles, Virginia's Court of Appeals in 2000 took the unfortunate leap of concluding that somehow the interstate Driver License Compact followed by Maryland and Virginia meant that Maryland DWI law would only apply to motor vehicles.

I was rather optimistic in thinking that the question of deference to ministerial interpretations of law had been settled by the Supreme Court of Canada in Agraira (see my post here).

Rather, their approach was much more theoretical than practical.60 In 1779, Thomas Jefferson, then the Governor of Virginia, established «a Professorship of Law and Police» at William and Mary College.61 George Wythe, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and, not coincidentally, the lawyer under whom Jefferson apprenticed, was appointed.62 The purpose of the course of study Wythe taught was less about producing practicing lawyers than it was educating the statesmen of the New Republic.63 Wythe did attempt to blend in some practical training with his lectures and readings through the use of a moot court and a moot legislature, though there is no indication that Wythe required any writing on the part of the students.64

The Supreme Court however left considerable discretion to judges deciding future cases, rather than setting out a detailed breakdown of how awards should be assessed - arguably, a very English (rather than Scots) law approach?

It makes unnecessary the two step analysis of the applicability of provincial laws suggested by s. 88 of the Indian Act, RSC 1985, c I - 5 (at least so far as provincial laws are claimed to apply to «Indians» rather than «lands reserved») and the Court's decision in Dick, [1985] 2 SCR 309 — in fact we don't need s. 88 any longer since there are no longer any inapplicable provincial laws that need to be made applicable by operation of a federal statute.

Until our justice system is color - blind and able to treat immigrants equally under law, we must end the cycle of incarceration that defaults to locking immigrants behind bars rather than providing meaningful access to our courts.»

The Court of Appeal accepted that rather than taking a rigid approach the trial judge noted the legal duty on the other driver, despite being the dominant driver was to «avail herself of any sufficient opportunity to avoid an accident if she was aware, or should have been aware, of the servient driver's own disregard of the law».

For example, a casual perusal of the online legal research service Westlaw reveals that «mumbo jumbo» appears at least 251 times in judicial opinions.8 «Jibber - jabber» shows up just seven times (although surprisingly used by parties, rather than in statements from the court), while the more prosaic «gobbledygook» has 126 hits in the legal database.9 Believed to have been coined in 1944 by U.S. Rep. Maury Maverick of Texas, «gobbledygook» has been used by everyone from political figures referring to bureaucratic doublespeak (for example, President Ronald Reagan's stinging 1985 indictment of tax law revisions as «cluttered with gobbledygook and loopholes designed for those with the power and influence to have high - priced legal and tax advisers») to judges decrying the indecipherable arguments and pleadings of the lawyers practicing before them.

A Law Society spokesman says: «Improving the way the courts are run inside the public sector would produce real benefits to the taxpayer and citizen, rather than adding to the profits of private operators.»

It is possible that the legislature intended to delegate the resolution of many questions of law to administrators, rather than to courts.

For the Court, the matter as a whole fell within Union law following not from the existence of an interest or unexercised competence but rather from the obligation contained in Article 14 (3) TEU and the 1976 Act on the elections to the European Parliament that such elections be «universal and direct».

Myanmar is the only (nominal) common law country to have a Constitutional Tribunal, rather than vesting the power of constitutional review in the Supreme Court.

Last week, I posted on how one law firm associate suing his firm for discrimination may be part of a larger trend towards using the court of public opinion rather than an ordinary court to further a cause.

In one blistering paragraph, Zywicki writes, «Leaving aside all of the intellectual arguments for whether the Court should or should not rely on international law for constitutional guidance, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Court's periodic reliance on world legal opinion is purely strategic rather than sincere, perhaps to dress up the Court's personal predilections in the guise of legal authority.»

As a matter of constitutional U.S. law, your conviction remains valid and you must serve the sentence, if your conviction was final and all appeals had been exhausted when the new court decision was announced unless it was a «new rule» of law rather than a mere interpretation of existing law, but if your conviction was not yet final because post-conviction motions or appeals were still pending, the new rule of law could be utilized to challenge your conviction.