Sentences with phrase «decisions in their case required»

We have represented people who felt that the court's decisions in their case required another look by an appeals court, and we have helped them with their appeals.

Not exact matches

In the first case, a majority of the stockholders is required to make the decision, and a simple notice to the IRS is all that is required.

In this situation, the overall monetary policy decision was relatively straightforward as the required movement was the same to meet both inflation and output goals, as is the case in the event of demand shockIn this situation, the overall monetary policy decision was relatively straightforward as the required movement was the same to meet both inflation and output goals, as is the case in the event of demand shockin the event of demand shocks.

Upon returning to the workforce, Cheryl took the steps necessary to become a licensed financial services professional and quickly realized the vast majority of current and prospective retirees did not have access to the advice and resources required to make an educated decision on, what in most cases, will prove to be one of the most critical financial decisions they'll ever make; when and how to claim Social Security retirement benefits.

(A decision for same - sex marriage by a state could as in the case of Massachusetts, preempts the debate in that state, but it is less far - reaching because it leaves other states to arrive at a different conclusion — unless, as some same - sex - marriage proponents have claimed, other states are required to recognize such marriages under the Constitution's requirement of giving «full faith and credit» to other states» proceedings.)

In these and many other ways, the case is advanced that Christianity is a public proposal within the realm of authentically public discourse, and requiring decisions of immeasurable consequences, both personal and cultural.

Way of life, profession, forms of recreation, possibilities of education are no longer in most cases inescapable facts determined by social and economic conditions, but have been transformed into questions and problems requiring moral decision.

In any case, our inquiry at this point must ask what sort of «theology for the social gospel» will square with the eternal truths of the Christian faith and thus be adequate to throw light on the decisions required of our time.

2 The CDF was not asked, required or empowered to make the decisions it is alleged to have done in this case, but just to advise on due process.

According to Mumuni, the Bank Access to Information Committee (AIC) in its Decision on appeal issued in Case number AI3982 - A dated 29 April 2016, and sent to SERAP held that although the appeal by the organisation was not filed within 60 days of the Bank's decision as required by its Access to Information Policy, SERAP appeal nonetheless «contains a request for additional information, not previously submitted by the requester, and which the Bank has neither considered norDecision on appeal issued in Case number AI3982 - A dated 29 April 2016, and sent to SERAP held that although the appeal by the organisation was not filed within 60 days of the Bank's decision as required by its Access to Information Policy, SERAP appeal nonetheless «contains a request for additional information, not previously submitted by the requester, and which the Bank has neither considered nordecision as required by its Access to Information Policy, SERAP appeal nonetheless «contains a request for additional information, not previously submitted by the requester, and which the Bank has neither considered nor denied.

The key here, in both cases, is that the presiding officer is required to enforce the rules as they currently exist, but any decision they make can be appealed to the whole Senate.

The Second Circuit found that a new Supreme Court decision narrowing public corruption laws in a case involving former Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell required different instructions than those used by Manhattan U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni.

Several months are in any case required for translation, review, etc. and a full case, all the way to an ECJ decision, takes several years.

This decision was reaffirmed in 2008 by Suffolk County Court in the case of Colaiacovo v. Dormer with Judge Gary J. Weber stating, «Simply put, the State of New York and its agencies are no longer in a position to require that a handgun be stored in an inoperable condition or otherwise locked up if it is otherwise legally present in the owner's dwelling.»

A recent appeals court ruling in a case that grew out of PSEG Long Island's expansion of an electrical substation on Old Stone Highway in Amagansett, represents a mixed decision for East Hampton Town, which had sought to hold the utility provider to local zoning laws that would have required planning board review of the project.

In the Wednesday case, a decision to bounce candidates from the line because they did not submit a required affidavit was upheld by the appellate court.

Making utilitarian rather than emotion - driven moral decisions, and resisting the impulse to make low transfers to one's partner require the suppression of the impulses to save one's baby, in the one case, and to keep the money, in the other.

«In our case study, we found that employers often saw breastfeeding as a personal decision, and therefore were unwilling to bring up the issue to their employees, even at crucial moments, such as when mothers file the required paperwork for family medical leave.

This is a very serious condition that in most cases will require rapid decisions by a qualified medical professional.

Prior to these changes, educators lived in a vague legal world, at the mercy of a Supreme Court decision (the 1996 Virginia Military Institute [VMI] case, United States v. Virginia), which required an «exceedingly persuasive justification» of anyone wanting to set up single - sex schools or classes.

The school admissions code currently requires the admission authority to make a decision on the year group a summer - born five - year - old should be admitted to on the basis of the circumstances of the case and in the best interests of the child.

The School challenged OFSTED's Complaints Procedure on the basis that if an organisation, such as OFSTED, has an internal Complaints Procedure it ought to be «a fair and robust process that permits a substantive challenge and which gives the complaining party the possibility, in appropriate cases, of having the decision changed» (although it was accepted that «fairness» does not necessarily require an external appeals process).

The case eventually made it to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which determined that the district would not be required to reimburse the family because it had met the standard of providing «some educational benefit,» which the 10th Circuit said was consistent with the standard established in 1982 in the Supreme Court's Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley (Rowley) decision.

The letter set out the case for an unprecedented legal challenge over decisions by the boards to increase the marks required for a grade C in GCSE English between January and June.

Janus wants the Supreme Court to overturn its 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, a case brought by a Detroit public school teacher who challenged a Michigan law that required him to pay agency fees to the Detroit Federation of Teachers (in an amount equivalent to the union's dues), even though he refused to join the union.

The decision did cite ongoing case law that requires the state to examine a series of issues in reviewing a charter application, including whether it would lead to racial segregation in schools.

For instance, 16 states now require that tenure decisions factor into performance on the front end, and seven states allow districts to revoke tenure in the case of consistently poor performance.88

(c) The Secretary shall also insure that (1) in developing and carrying out individualized written REHABILITATION program required by section 101 in the case of each handicapped individual primary emphasis is placed upon the determination and achievement of a vocational goal for such individual, (2) a decision that such an individual is not capable of achieving such a goal and thus not eligible for vocational REHABILITATION services provided with assistance under this part, is made only in full consultation with such individual (or, in appropriate cases, his parents or guardians), and only upon the certification, as an amendment to such written program, that the * evaluation of REHABILITATION potential has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that such individual is not then capable of achieving such a goal, and (3) any such decision shall be reviewed at least annually in accordance with the procedure and criteria established in this section.

The General Attorney occupation covers professional legal positions involved in preparing cases for trial and / or the trial of cases before a court or an administrative body or persons having quasi-judicial power; rendering legal advice and services with respect to questions, regulations, practices, or other matters falling within the purview of a Federal Government agency (this may include conducting investigations to obtain evidentiary data); preparing interpretative and administrative orders, rules, or regulations to give effect to the provisions of governing statutes or other requirements of law; drafting, negotiating, or examining contracts or other legal documents required by the agency's activities; drafting, preparing formal comments, or otherwise making substantive recommendations with respect to proposed legislation; editing and preparing for publication statutes enacted by Congress, opinions or discussions of a court, commission, or board; drafting and reviewing decisions for consideration and adoption by agency officials.

In some cases, we may require additional information prior to making the final decision.

In addition, the Company expects the judge hearing the Company's long running litigation with the former minority owners of the Company's Haru segment to issue a decision in the case shortly which will require the Company to make a payment of at least $ 3.7 million (the amount offered by the Company) and as much as $ 10 million (the amount sought by the former minority ownersIn addition, the Company expects the judge hearing the Company's long running litigation with the former minority owners of the Company's Haru segment to issue a decision in the case shortly which will require the Company to make a payment of at least $ 3.7 million (the amount offered by the Company) and as much as $ 10 million (the amount sought by the former minority ownersin the case shortly which will require the Company to make a payment of at least $ 3.7 million (the amount offered by the Company) and as much as $ 10 million (the amount sought by the former minority owners).

Moreover, in this line of cases, there already had been a decision that adopts a two - part test for bona fide tax - exempt nonprofit credit counseling agencies, requiring such agencies to: (1) be recognized by the IRS as being exempt from federal income taxation under section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; and (2) actually operate as a bona fide nonprofit organization.

To the extent that the Amgen defendants were arguing that the Supreme Court decision established new standards of liability to be considered, the 9th Circuit noted that it had already considered in its previous case that fiduciaries are not required to perform an act that would do more harm than good to retirement plan participants.

To ensure a fair and reasonable outcome is achieved in each case, the decision will be made in accordance with the statements and principles set out in the Taxpayers» charter, compliance model, and the good decision - making model (which requires that the decision be legal, ethical, overt, sensible, timely and in accordance with the principles of natural justice).

Unprejudiced and positive tests are therefore greatly needed, and these can only be found in show and trials under judges who have the common interest so keenly in view that they will allow neither friendship nor personal bias to control the awards; men who will bear ever in mind that upon their decision will greatly depend the future reputation of the animal in the stud, and who will therefore examine carefully each specimen before them, giving due credit to beauty and blood, but in all cases where possible requiring also performance were they pronounce a favorable verdict».

In either case it is the mission of this practice to provide you with all the information you require to make an informed decision, to give your pet the best and most compassionate care available and to keep you informed of your patient's progress.

The ASPCA expects animal sheltering organizations to make every effort to find adoption or placement options for the animals in their care, while also recognizing that shelters require discretion to make the best decisions for those animals and the communities in which they live, particularly in cases involving severe behavior or medical issues or dogs deemed dangerous under applicable law.

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).

POWERING THE PLANET is an eye - opening look at some of the world's most important case studies in smart energy decisions, and a provocative assessment of what it takes to build a sustainable energy infrastructure — a process that spans decades and requires long - term government support.

In most cases, adaptation requires information and tools coupled to a decision - support process steered by strong leadership, and there are a growing number of examples in the NortheasIn most cases, adaptation requires information and tools coupled to a decision - support process steered by strong leadership, and there are a growing number of examples in the Northeasin the Northeast.

Where national commitments have been deduced from collective decision making — such as the case in the EU — nations should be required to explain the equity and justice basis for its national commitment.

In Mass. v. EPA, the Court based its decision partly on the view that an endangerment finding would not lead to «extreme measures,» such as an outright ban on motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions.76 However, requiring tens of thousands of small sources to obtain PSD permits and 6.1 million to obtain Title V permits annually would be an extreme case.

Little did I know that, in the dank toilet of DC justice, they can, on the one hand, have two trial judges simultaneously ruling on the same case while, on the other hand, be entirely unaware of whether their own anti-SLAPP law is appealable and thus require a decision from the Appeals Court on whether the law is appealable before the appeal can be appealed.

Thus, for example, in the present case the president of the Queen's Bench Division observed: «Courts and Tribunals acting judicially are generally required to give reasons for their decisions, and further normally required to publish them for the proper public administration of justice so as to comply with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.»

However, the General Court accepted Gifi's argument that the Board failed to examine all the evidence it had produced, and the Board's judgment did not mention several of the designs cited: «In the present case, it is clear that, in the light of the Board of Appeal's assertion that it was required to re-examine the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety, followed by a one - by - one examination of the contested design in relation only to Designs D 1 to D 17, it is impossible to infer from the wording of the contested decision, or the context in which it appears, what is the implied reasoning justifying the failure to take into account Designs D 18 to D 22.&raquIn the present case, it is clear that, in the light of the Board of Appeal's assertion that it was required to re-examine the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety, followed by a one - by - one examination of the contested design in relation only to Designs D 1 to D 17, it is impossible to infer from the wording of the contested decision, or the context in which it appears, what is the implied reasoning justifying the failure to take into account Designs D 18 to D 22.&raquin the light of the Board of Appeal's assertion that it was required to re-examine the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety, followed by a one - by - one examination of the contested design in relation only to Designs D 1 to D 17, it is impossible to infer from the wording of the contested decision, or the context in which it appears, what is the implied reasoning justifying the failure to take into account Designs D 18 to D 22.&raquin its entirety, followed by a one - by - one examination of the contested design in relation only to Designs D 1 to D 17, it is impossible to infer from the wording of the contested decision, or the context in which it appears, what is the implied reasoning justifying the failure to take into account Designs D 18 to D 22.&raquin relation only to Designs D 1 to D 17, it is impossible to infer from the wording of the contested decision, or the context in which it appears, what is the implied reasoning justifying the failure to take into account Designs D 18 to D 22.&raquin which it appears, what is the implied reasoning justifying the failure to take into account Designs D 18 to D 22.»

Attorneys successfully defended a motion for class certification in connection with case involving an insurer's decision to require that third party claimants obtain their own salvage certificate of title for vehicles appraised to be a total loss as...

In contrast, previous case law in this area (e.g. decisions about bonuses) required the employee to show that the employer had acted «arbitrarily» or «capriciously ``: arguably this was a lower threshold for employees than having to show that «no reasonable employer» would have made the decisioIn contrast, previous case law in this area (e.g. decisions about bonuses) required the employee to show that the employer had acted «arbitrarily» or «capriciously ``: arguably this was a lower threshold for employees than having to show that «no reasonable employer» would have made the decisioin this area (e.g. decisions about bonuses) required the employee to show that the employer had acted «arbitrarily» or «capriciously ``: arguably this was a lower threshold for employees than having to show that «no reasonable employer» would have made the decision.

If the partners don't ignore the decision, they may oppose it, in which case every management decision becomes a partnership decision, requiring debate and consensus among the partners and wasting valuable partner time.

In cases in which the Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant to search be obtained, «probable cause» is the standard by which a particular decision to search is tested against the constitutional mandate of reasonablenesIn cases in which the Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant to search be obtained, «probable cause» is the standard by which a particular decision to search is tested against the constitutional mandate of reasonablenesin which the Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant to search be obtained, «probable cause» is the standard by which a particular decision to search is tested against the constitutional mandate of reasonableness.

When a scenario arises whereby separate applications and hearings are required, clients may think that this is just an opportunity for their lawyers to charge them yet more fees, but in some cases, the decision in Morris v Morris [2016] EWCA Civ 812, [2016] All ER (D) 58 (Aug) being an example, different applications need to be kept separate for very good reason.