Sentences with phrase «defendant appealed the court»

Not exact matches

In November 2017, he achieved precedent - setting victories for investors, when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that direct evidence of price impact is not always necessary to demonstrate market efficiency to invoke the presumption of reliance, and that defendants seeking to rebut the presumption of reliance must do so by a preponderance of the evidence rather than merely meeting a burden of production.

On 13 December 2017 all four defendants attended an appeal hearing at the Revolutionary Court in Tehran in front of two judges.

The order says that defendants may not appeal to any court.

The defendants, property owners along the lake's shoreline, can appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.

On appeal, the Second Circuit found that the jury instructions were too broad, permitting the juries to convict the defendants of corruption charges on a theory that fell outside the definition of «official act,» which the Supreme Court had provided in McDonnell.

In Bonventre's view, Cuomo has so far put together a coherent, capable Court of Appeals that includes jurists with both Democratic and Republican backgrounds, as well as those with experience in both law enforcement and defendants» rights.

He said the trial court had become functus - officio to grant such request to the defendant who he said had yet to appeal previous rulings that were delivered against him on the same subject matter.

«The first defendant Nnamdi Kanu has appealed to the court for bail based on health grounds and it is only the living that can stand trial.

Justice Nnamdi Dimgba made the order of indefinite adjournment of the suit last Thursday to await the decision of the Court of Appeal on the issue of service of the suit on Akeredolu and other defendants.

In a May ruling, the 2nd U.S Circuit Court of Appeals in New York said the attacks were an act of war, exempting defendants of liability under a law enacted in 1980 to deal with environmental and health risks caused by industrial pollution.

No, the result was that the appeals court reversed the denial of the defendants» motion for dismissal and vacated the injunction.

Defendants of the program have appealed that ruling all the way to the state Supreme Court, and while a final ruling on the merits of the program is to come, today we take a second look toward other states that have implemented school voucher programs or similar models of their own to see how they have fared.

Note: The State of Connecticut (defendants) and CCJEF (plaintiffs) have appealed the decisions and the Supreme Court has allowed that appeal to move forward.

Appeal from judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Mark D. Fox, Magistrate Judge), which held that defendant Board of Education of the Newburgh Enlarged City School District intentionally discriminated against plaintiff Santina Polera in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and awarded damages to plaintiff.

An appeals court opinion found that the horses suffered pain due to the defendants» failure to provide adequate food.

On December 6, 2010, the Supreme Court said it will hear an appeal from defendant electric utilities, agreeing to consider ending the federal lawsuit by eight states, which asks a federal judge to order reductions in the emissions in plants in 20 states.

I asked Reilly if the professor would have any supporting briefs next month when he responds to the defendants in the D.C. appeals court.

As super-attentive readers will know, re the upcoming Mann vs Steyn trial of the century, I was not part of my fellow defendants» appeal to the DC Appeals Court to rule on whether DC's anti-SLAPP law is appealable - because I reckoned it would all prove a waste of time and, therefore, we might as well get the hell on with the trial.

Defendants had appealed this Court's decision denying summary judgment as to the Government's claim for disgorgement under 18 U.S.C. 1964 (a).

Ultimately, the defendant was convicted and appealed, arguing that the «trial court's remarks during voir dire trivialized the reasonable doubt standard, diluted the concept of reasonable doubt and lowered the People's burden of proof, constituting structural error.»

Although the motion judge refused to strike the claim, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and stated that the proper defendant in the case was the manufacAppeal allowed the appeal and stated that the proper defendant in the case was the manufacappeal and stated that the proper defendant in the case was the manufacturer.

The defendant then appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has squarely ruled, Judge Batten said, that where a copyright owner could not sustain an infringement action in federal court, then the would - be defendant in a potential coercive action can not bring an anticipatory declaratory judgement acCourt of Appeals has squarely ruled, Judge Batten said, that where a copyright owner could not sustain an infringement action in federal court, then the would - be defendant in a potential coercive action can not bring an anticipatory declaratory judgement accourt, then the would - be defendant in a potential coercive action can not bring an anticipatory declaratory judgement action.

replete with such language: it disdains the district court's «abrupt handling» of Appellant's first case; sarcastically refers to Appellant's previous counsel's «new - found appreciation for defendant's mental abilities;» criticizes the district court's «oblique language» on an issue unrelated to this appeal; states that the district court opinion in Jones «revealed a crabby and complaining reaction to Project Exile;» insinuates that the district court's concerns «require -LSB--RSB- a belief in the absurd that is similar in kind to embracing paranormal conspiracy theories;» and accuses Appellant of being a «charlatan» and «exploit [ing] his identity as an African - American.»

The Court of Appeal was also tasked with reviewing ICBC's allegations of passing - off, in a consideration of whether or not the Defendant's actions were likely to cause a misrepresentation to the public that constituted «passing - off» of ICBC's well - known trademarks.

The defendant appealed, first to a judge of the Federal Court, who had upheld the prothonotary's decision.

Since the Supreme Court of Canada's 2004 decision in Schmeiser, the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal have considered a number of cases on the consideration to be given to non-infringing alternatives when assessing the plaintiff's damages or the defendant's profits.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the trial judge who found that the defendants should pay 75 % of the claimants» costs and that the claimants should pay the costs of the defendants» counterclaim.

An appeals court ruled that the word was important and reversed the defendant's manslaughter conviction.

In addition, the court will hear two court martial appeals, one of which challenges the National Defence Act for violating the defendant's right to prosecutorial independence.

In an opinion issued this week (Zabin v. Picciotto), the Massachusetts Appeals Court delivered the defendants a trick rather than the treat they'd hoped to receive.

My summary of the case is: A trial judge — he wasn't named in the Court of Appeal but his name can easily be discovered — had dismissed plaintiff's claim against the defendant bank and a solicitor for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.

As for the suggestion that the judge should have held a competency hearing, how could a judge conduct a meaningful «competency» hearing against a defendant when the judge was the incompetent party, i.e., «altogether uninformed» and «egregious lack of knowledge» on the issue of self - representation rights as admonished by the court of appeals.

The Court of Appeal concluded that s. 3 (3) of the OLA governed and that the defendants» waivers of liability were therefore valid.

Recently, the Singapore Court of Appeal considered in Wee Shuo Woon v HT SRL4 whether privilege still attached to confidential documents published online as a result of a cyberattack on the defendant company.

The court of appeals made this clear when it stated that this judge was «altogether uninformed» about a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to self - representation and that «This egregious lack of knowledge presents a serious risk to the rights of defendants.»

Barristers who were not trial counsel but who are instructed to represent convicted defendants in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal have been given new guidance by the Bar Council's Ethics Committee on their duty to check the factual basis for the appeal or risk criticism and actionAppeal have been given new guidance by the Bar Council's Ethics Committee on their duty to check the factual basis for the appeal or risk criticism and actionappeal or risk criticism and action by...

In US v. Mitchell, No. 09 - 3041, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's conviction for money laundering conspiracy, holding that 1) the indictment was not so defective that defendant could not have reasonably understood the offense for which he was charged; and 2) defendant did not show that the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed the probative value of certain tax information.

And it was the defendant's competence and the judge's incompetence and ignorance of the law that resulted in this defendant being the prevailing party on this issue per the decision of the court of appeals.

The Indiana Court of Appeals rebuked Lake Superior Court judge Diane Boswell for not knowing that a criminal defendant almost always has the right to proceed to trial without an attorney.

After a series of lower court decisions resulted in conflicting conclusions, the Appeals Court vacated a Superior Court judgment allowing the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of the three - year limitation period of G.L. c. 84, court decisions resulted in conflicting conclusions, the Appeals Court vacated a Superior Court judgment allowing the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of the three - year limitation period of G.L. c. 84, Court vacated a Superior Court judgment allowing the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of the three - year limitation period of G.L. c. 84, Court judgment allowing the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of the three - year limitation period of G.L. c. 84, § 15.

The defendant's request on appeal was for a writ of mandamus, which is a rarely used procedural tool that allows a higher court to order a lower court or government agent to perform a certain task.

The defendant appealed unsuccessfully to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court should have excluded any damages that could be attributed to the plaintiff's employer and for failing to follow a particular formula in calculating prejudgment interest.

In respect of (2), the Court of Appeal reiterated the test to establish the defence of fair comment, being: (a) the comment must be on a matter of public interest; (b) the comment must be based on fact; (c) the comment, though it can include inferences of fact, must be recognisable as comment; (d) whether the person honestly express that opinion on the proved facts; and (e) whether the defendant was actuated by express malice.

AND the appeals court making the claim that the defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that he / she was damaged then «changing» that level of proof to what appears to be a higher standard by saying, «On review, we will not reverse the judgment unless the evidence as a whole unerringly and unmistakably leads to a conclusion opposite that reached by the post-conviction court.»

The Court of Appeal then rejected assignor's due process argument, finding that assignor had notice that defendant sought a fee award on a surety basis — with ample opportunity to respond to defendant's request.

The court of appeals reversed summary judgment for defendant, holding that 1) the district court erred in its analysis of whether a witness's statement was made in reaction to a truly startling event, and whether the statement was made under the stress of excitement caused by that event; and 2) there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant's failure to remove the stump was a proximate cause of plaintiff's accident.

The Court of Appeal recognised in Dacre v Westminster Magistrates that many private prosecutors will have «mixed motives», and lawfully so, in that they will be motivated by a selfish or spiteful desire to punish the defendant, as well as a more high - minded desire to act in the public interest and to see criminal justice enacted.

Upholding the judge's finding of liability on the 93A clam, the Appeals Court held that the former employer - employee relationship between the plaintiff and the individual defendant «does not stand as a bar» to the chapter 93A claim and that his conduct was «actionable independent of his contractual obligations.»