Sentences with phrase «decision in this case seems»

I think the court's decision in this case seems very reasonable.

Not exact matches

It seems inevitable that the Supreme Court of Canada's R. v. Comeau decision, in what will forever be known as «the Beer Case,» will go down as controversial and perhaps even deeply unpopular.

It seems to me that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the school - prayer cases had a much deeper and more powerful impact on the culture.

That seems likely to remain the case in the immediate future, even though the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision permits state legislatures to enact some modest regulation of abortion practice.

let's face it, everyone and his brother has known what our deficiencies have been for several years, so why can't our management team seem to identify our weaknesses and aggressively target the necessary additions... the only plausible answer is we aren't willing to pay even close to market value for the players we clearly need and if we do actually get to the table we seem to make insulting bids that simple infuriate the team in question... for years Wenger has said he couldn't find any world class players to fill our voids, which seems to suggest that he thinks we currently have upwards of 40 world class players on our existing roster... if that is the case he should never be in charge of making personnel decisions... buying late in the window is so problematic, for obvious reasons, and especially since this year was supposed to be different (sarcasm)

Unless baseball voluntarily complies with the decision, which seemed doubtful as of Monday, the case is likely to slog through the legal system and keep the nine umps in limbo for the rest of this season.

much like when a country can't divulge highly classified information publicly for obvious economic and military reasons, a professional soccer organization must keep certain things in - house so they don't devalue a player, expose a weakness, provide info that could give an opposing club leverage in future negotiations and / or give them vital intel regarding a future match, but when dishonesty becomes the norm the relationship between cub and fan will surely deteriorate... in our particular case, our club has done an absolutely atrocious job when it comes to cultivating a healthy and honest relationship with the media or their fans, which has contributed greatly to our lack of success in the transfer market... along with poor decisions involving weekly wages, we can't ever seem to get true market value for most of our outgoing players and other teams seem to squeeze every last cent out of us when we are looking to buy; why wouldn't they, when you go to the table with such a openly desperate and dysfunctional team like ours, you have all the leverage; made even worse by the fact that who wouldn't want to see our incredibly arrogant and thrifty manager squirm during the process... the real issue at this club is respect, a word that appears to be entirely lost on those within our hierarchy... this is the starting point from which all great relationships between club and supporters form... this doesn't mean that a team can't make mistakes along the way, that's just human nature, it's about how they chose to deal with these situations that will determine if this relationship flourishes or devolves..

@DavidGrinberg -(1) while a valid ethical point, this seems like such a rare edge case that in real life it would never affect any decision making by either side.

However the court views the two cases, it seems increasingly likely that a decision striking down districts won't result in any changes this year.

The two interim United States attorneys who will assume office in New York City today will inherit major cases and pending decisions that seem likely to define the focus of their work over the next few years and could begin to shape their legacies.

Although based on Lamberth's previous rulings in the case, he seems likely to rule in favor of the plaintiffs and issue a permanent injunction, Robertson predicts that stay or a new version of it would remain in place while the decision is appealed.

Kealoha Pisciotta, a Hawaiian cultural practitioner and a plaintiff in the case against the TMT permit, said she believed the board had rubber - stamped the permit, and the decision seemed like a foregone conclusion.

Fortunately, progress in stem - cell research can still continue through non-federal funds, and the prevailing zeitgeist does seem to favor an eventual nullification of the decision: Yesterday, another overreaching legal case bit the dust when an appellate judge dismissed a lawsuit that claimed CERN's Large Hadron Collider risked destroying the Earth.

Outside of these things, there doesn't seem to be a tangible emotional connection that would lead you to conclude that they have something deeper for each other that would cause them to make life - altering (and in some cases, life threatening) decisions that one would only do if they were really and truly in love.

Based on what little is shown here, Jolie seems to be channeling the vocal mannerisms of Eleanor Audley, who voiced Maleficent in Disney's animated Sleeping Beauty feature; a fine decision, if that's the case.

This is an interesting case because, by its own position as set out in the judgment, it seems OFSTED consciously intended to limit opportunity for schools held to be inadequate or subject to a recommendation that they be placed into special measures to challenge OFSTED's decision and to challenge the content of the report.

Although the Supreme Court's decision in Allen has left no detectable sign of «disharmony, hatred, and strife among our people,» the dissenting justices in the Cleveland case seem to believe that the only way to avoid «indoctrination» and religious warfare is to educate children in government - run schools (even though most industrialized countries provide support to religious schools.

Obtaining physical space on a university campus may seem like a pipe - dream in many cases, but visualizing and planning for an eventual space can help to sustain motivation and drive key decisions that may lead to the space becoming a reality.

The Supreme Court regularly sends back pending cases for a re-airing after it renders decisions that seem legally relevant, but such a move does mean that the court believes there is a «reasonable probability» that a lower court may come to a different decision in light of its findings.

Maeve soon finds herself entangled in a case with a thousand leads that all seem to point nowhere, and it doesn't help that her boss, whom she trusts more than almost anyone, is starting to make decisions that Maeve finds questionable at best.

Characters fail to react to events as one would expect, nobody seems to ever make decisions which make much sense and motivations are vague at best, especially in the case of the Ice Lords, who are seemingly evil because fuck it, that's why!.

It seems that the definition of «consensus» varies by field, just as the decision - making framework does, with unanimity or near unanimity expected from the scientific community, even including those scientists who in many cases have not really embedded themselves in the literature nor been required to put together a coherent assembly and analysis of scientific knowledge (and even including, somehow, CEI's [Competitive Enterprise Institute] lawyers with their ExxonMobil support, who are often quoted as the contrary view in papers on the science of climate change).

In the case of EU member states, the collective decision making process of the EU does not seem to have led to any greater ethical analysis at the national level for individual EU nations including the Netherlands and Italy when these nations set their emissions reduction targets.

I'm sure in most cases editors give great weight to reviewers words and they know they are risking antagonizing them if they don't, so I guess the decision isn't taken lightly.Isaac Held from what I've seen from his blog responses seems like a fairly level headed person, I'm sure he can shrug off this ever so slight prick to his ego.

It is easy to foresee this same story unfolding in the geoengineering case, which also seems to allow governments to avoid difficult decisions and declare that new technology will save us from a warming globe.

And as Kevin LaCroix (now an executive with OakBridge Insurance Services) observed after reading the transcript's account of the tone and temper of the parties» pleadings in the case, his «own decision years ago to walk away from the active practice of law seemed more and more like a really smart move.»

In this post, Ciara examines a decision which seems at first view to follow up on case law such as Zambrano, McCarthy and Dereci — but finally ends up being more about interpreting the Family Reunification Directive in light of the fundamental right to family lifIn this post, Ciara examines a decision which seems at first view to follow up on case law such as Zambrano, McCarthy and Dereci — but finally ends up being more about interpreting the Family Reunification Directive in light of the fundamental right to family lifin light of the fundamental right to family life.

A case about racial bias in the jury room would seem to have all the makings of a provocative and headline - grabbing decision.

Some bloggers seem to think they're still in law school, publishing lengthy case summaries of recent decisions that would bore lawyers, let alone clients, who happened upon them.

Earlier statistics regarding ICC cost decisions seem to suggest that arbitral tribunals in most cases start with the rule «costs follow the event» but in the end decide that each party has to bear its own costs.

Anna These limitation principles have come up in recent Pensions Ombudsman decisions and court cases, but they seem a bit tangled.

28) Mr. Melloni, had in fact appointed two lawyers to defend him in his case before the Italian court and thus seemed unable to rely on the provision in the Framework Decision.

But I do agree that the General Court's Judgment (in the case brought precisely by shipyards) may arguably contain elements which would seem to lend suppport your view, contrary to the one advanced by the Commission's decision.

The Supreme Court answered these two crucial questions in the Gall and Kimbrough cases in December 2007, yet these two decisions seemed to talk past each other in terms of sentencing procedure.

I've only quickly looked at the Arcon case, but it seems to apply to model contract forms, like those in use in the 1923 NSW decision of Real Estate Institute v. Wood.

It seems to me that the Beals case did say that fraud in the decision to be enforced would be relevant to enforcement — but that does not affect jurisdiction to consider the issue.

Odom, though he disagrees with it, doesn't seem surprised by the outcome of the case, in light of the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Teleflex, which he has nicknamed «Obzilla,» for its vast expansion of the definition of obviousness.

This case seems further proof, as I noted less than a month ago in this post, that the FMLA is now coming of age, which means more reported decisions, which in turn will lead to more cases.

My final remark on this case is a second remark concerning the fact that the ECJ seems to be of the opinion that there was no exclusionary effect, because FK won back the contracts in 2007 and still had its distribution network in place, whereas the decision of the Danish competition authority at stake dates from 2004.

My most recent article was from October, 2017 when it seemed like much of the legal instability plaguing employment lawyers over the previous year had been resolved due to the court's decision in North, which followed many practitioners» 2017 «case of the year,» Wood.

The recent decision of the European Court of Justice (CJEU) in the case between Slovakia vs. Achmea BV (Case C - 284 / 16) seems to have causecase between Slovakia vs. Achmea BV (Case C - 284 / 16) seems to have causeCase C - 284 / 16) seems to have caused...

Similarly, this story from New York details a sentencing decision by US District Judge Richard J. Arcara which seemed to put the focus, in another a non-violent first - offense case, on rehabilitation concerns.

The recent decision of the European Court of Justice (CJEU) in the case between Slovakia vs. Achmea BV (Case C - 284 / 16) seems to have caused a ripple effect for investment arbitration: In the case against.in the case between Slovakia vs. Achmea BV (Case C - 284 / 16) seems to have caused a ripple effect for investment arbitration: In the case againscase between Slovakia vs. Achmea BV (Case C - 284 / 16) seems to have caused a ripple effect for investment arbitration: In the case againsCase C - 284 / 16) seems to have caused a ripple effect for investment arbitration: In the case against.In the case againscase against...

The lower courts» decisions in this case always seemed to me to be too pure for real life, form over substance.

The appropriate standard of review in this case does not seem particularly contentious in light of the foregoing — until one considers the argument from the Human Rights Tribunal that its determination is entitled to deference based on paragraphs 166 to 168 of the Supreme Court of Canada's 2013 decision in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Tribunal) v Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11.

Although, as Dyzenhaus has argued, a justification - based approach to reasonableness is not necessarily more intrusive than the traditional Wednesbury approach, the effect of Li seems to have been to increase judicial scrutiny of administrative decisions in at least some cases.

The decision seems to fall into line with the general rule that the courts rarely order lawyers to pay costs except in cases of misconduct.

Some parts of the ITC decision really seemed highly debatable to me, and by having already won three German patent cases against Motorola in two different courts, Microsoft has clearly proven that Android infringes many of its patents — not only the one the ITC deemed infringed.

It's interesting that you place an accent on «distinguishable», whereas in reality, I've never seen any of the case law references actually mention the final outcome of any of the cases they mention, and, overall, it seems like the probability of favourable / non-favourable decision of the referenced case is like, perhaps, 50/50.

This certainly seems to stop any moves to extend the consultation requirement back into that «strategic or commercial decision», unless of course it is a «closure» case where UK law may now be in advance of EC law as a result of the decision of the EAT in UK Coal Mining Ltd v NUM [2008] IRLR 4.