Sentences with phrase «documents by order of our courts»

«What the United States said, and it appears in the open documents of this case, is that the disclosure of these documents by order of our courts would be «likely to result in serious damage to US national security and could harm existing intelligence information - sharing between our two governments»,» the foreign secretary said.

Not exact matches

Zillow Group accepts service of subpoenas, search warrants, and court orders seeking production of documents by email from government and law enforcement agencies.

Judge to Yankees: Comply with Brodsky's Subpoena State Supreme Court Justice John Egan Jr. has ordered the Yankees to turn over «a catalog of all documents and materials» that were sought in a subpoena by Assemblyman Richard Brodsky.

The story reports that the ex felt pressured by state troopers not to pursue an order of protection — citing court documents — but also reports that she would «not comment further» to the paper regarding the incident.

Justice Moshood Abass of Oyo State High Court, Ibadan, on Wednesday ordered that the renewed writ of summons and other documents in the suit filed by...

Alpha authorizers can show the way by having the courage to tackle the politics associated with closing underperforming schools and knowing how to document the facts in order to prevail in the court of law and public opinion.

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.

Those accusations led to most of the publishers settling out of court in order to avoid even more costly legal fees, a factor that Wylie says Amazon played a part in by providing documents to the Department of Justice at the time.

· Court - ordered assignment of debt should be documented by a copy of the court oCourt - ordered assignment of debt should be documented by a copy of the court ocourt order.

According to new court documents provided by the hardware giant, George Hotz has fled to South America in order to avoid a court - ordered seizure of his hard drives.

by Chris White Daily Caller A New York court ordered AG Eric Schneiderman Thursday to fork over public information about elements of his climate crusade to a libertarian think tank in Washington, D.C. New York Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) in a case involving a series of documents conservatives believe could reveal a -LSBcourt ordered AG Eric Schneiderman Thursday to fork over public information about elements of his climate crusade to a libertarian think tank in Washington, D.C. New York Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) in a case involving a series of documents conservatives believe could reveal a -LSBCourt ruled in favor of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) in a case involving a series of documents conservatives believe could reveal a -LSB-...]

by Todd Shepherd Washington Free Beacon A New York appellate court again ordered that state's top cop to pay thousands of dollars in attorney's fees for improperly denying a request for documents under the state's Freedom of Information Law.

In Pounds v Pounds [1994] 1 FLR 775 the Court of Appeal held that a consent order could be approved by a district judge as part of his «directions for trial» when approving the special procedure documents for divorce.

Atlas argued that the document should only be produced for inspection by the court if necessary, and that it was not necessary to do so in order for the court to uphold its claim of privilege.

In this case, the Court found that ClientEarth could not rely on the Aarhus Convention to challenge the Public Access to Documents Regulation (Regulation 1049/2001) in order to obtain commissioned studies on compliance by Member States with EU environmental law in the context of infringement procedures.

The documents at issue were drawn up by the Legal Service not in connection with any pending cases and the Commission had only applied for leave to intervene, an application that was ultimately not granted because the cases were settled by way of orders, thus logically implying that if the court proceedings exception ever applied, it has by now ceased to do so.

If the English Court made an order for transfer of a Scottish property (say, from both spouses to one of them) then if one of the spouses fails to comply with the order by refusing the sign the transfer documents, there seems to be no easy way to make that happen.

The Court of Appeal held that judges should be flexible when dealing with non-compliant documents submitted by SRLs, in order to ensure that admissible portions are considered.

Summary: The appellant requested the Supreme Court of Sweden to lift the confiscation of documents ordered by the Svea Court of Appeal under the Swedish Act on International Legal Assistance in...

The Court also ruled that if an order for disclosure of the agreements was subsequently made, it was minded to restrict the use that could be made of the documents, including by restricting access to ENRC's legal team, and not providing copies to certain identified senior officers of ENRC itself.

These were to address one or more of eight issues seen as important to courts: form - filling — making court documents more accessible to litigants in person; order drafting — creating orders that are more likely to be accepted by courts; continuous online hearing — challenging the question of whether a court is a place or a service; argument - building — to aid non-lawyers in creating well - structured arguments, distinguishing fact from law; outcome prediction — using technology to answer the natural question «what are my chances of winning?»

FPR 2010 r 21.1 (1) anticipates such a list in the family court, but this is rarely anticipated, still less ordered, by the court (eg, most disclosure in financial remedy proceedings is dictated by production of documents with Form E (the parties» financial statement)-RRB-.

It may be by some other form of investigation or examination into his private concerns, as by opening his private and personal mail, searching his safe or his wallet, examining his private bank account, or compelling him by a forged court order to permit an inspection of his personal documents.

HAMALENGWA — Findings of Professional Misconduct — While representing a difficult client who was charged with first degree murder, the Lawyer was eligible to bill the Ministry of the Attorney General for fees and disbursements pursuant to a Fisher order — The Lawyer's accounting, billing and docketing systems were deplorable and bore no relationship to his billings to the Ministry — The Lawyer engaged in professional misconduct by billing the Ministry for attendances at court when he had not attended or attended for less time than he claimed; overbilling for legal research; billing for services that were not properly billable as legal services; overbilling for student assistance disbursements he had not incurred; overbilling for fees and disbursements that were not fair and reasonable; and submitting a document to the Ministry purporting to be an invoice from a student working under his direction when the invoice was not prepared by the student and the services were not rendered as described in the document.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Court of Appeal ordering a new trial after a document book was admitted «en masse» along with a discovery transcript in a personal injury jury trial.

In order for your contribution to the support of your child to be acknowledged by the Pinal or Maricopa County family court, it must be properly documented as a child support payment.

Documents produced are not to be used by the other party (ies) except for the purposes of this litigation unless and until the scope of the undertaking is varied by a court order or other judicial order, consent or statutory override or a situation of immediate and serious danger emerges.

Having no knowledge of the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct, the self - represented litigant is therefore prone to be bullied by opposing counsel, with no one around to articulate — much less to document — how a lawyer might be «gaming» the court's processes in order to take full advantage of a self - represented party's relative lack of legal sophistication.

This applies both where that advice is limited in time, eg until after a criminal defence statement has been filed and served and, worse still, the advice is given not to make such a response at all; • (f) the date on which a party to care proceedings is to file and serve a criminal defence statement in linked criminal proceedings is wholly irrelevant to the court's determination of the date on which that party should file and serve a response to threshold and / or to file and serve a narrative statement in the care proceedings; • (g) the mere fact that a party is ordered to file and serve a response to threshold and / or to file and serve a narrative statement before the date a criminal defence statement is to be filed and served in criminal proceedings is not a ground for failing to comply with the former order; • (h) it [is not] a ground for an application to extend the time for compliance with an order to file and serve a response to threshold and / or to file and serve a narrative statement until a date after the criminal defence statement has been filed and served; and • (i) any issue about alleged prejudice to a defendant in criminal proceedings based on him being required to file and serve a response to threshold and / or to file and serve a narrative statement before the date of a criminal defence statement is to be filed and served, or at all, only arises and is only potentially relevant if and when an application is made by the police and / or a co-accused for statements and documents filed in the family proceedings to be disclosed into linked criminal proceedings [see Re C (A Minor)(Care Proceedings: Disclosure)[1997] Fam 76, [1997] 2 WLR 322, sub nom Re EC (Disclosure of Material)[1996] 2 FLR 725, CA].

• (a) and (b) do not directly relate to the parent's statement; • (c) a legal practitioner is entitled to advise a client of (i) the provisions and import of s 98 of the 1989 Act and (ii) the ability of the police and / or a co-accused to make application for disclosure into the criminal proceedings of statements, reports and documents filed in the care proceedings; • (d) it is wholly inappropriate and potentially a contempt of court, however, for a legal practitioner to advise a client not to comply with an order made in care proceedings; • (e) it is wholly inappropriate and potentially a contempt of court for a legal practitioner to advise a client not to give a full, accurate and comprehensive response to the findings of fact sought by a local authority in the threshold criteria document.

The open - handedness of the way in which this guidance was debated and then given by Keehan J contrasts markedly from the genesis of the guidance given by Mr Justice Mostyn in UL v BK (Freezing Orders: Safeguards: Standard Examples)[2013] UKHC 1735 (Fam), [2013] All ER (D) 277 (Jun)(on Imerman documents), and by Pauffley J in Re NL (above) where she and the president roasted the practices of the Reading Magistrates» Court.

The agreement or court order of appointment specifies how the fee is split and it may be re-apportioned by the Parenting Coordinator between the parents if that is set out in the authorizing document.

It opposed a Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBS Canada) challenge to a document production order by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, requiring RBS Group to produce records located outside of the Canada.

The case also considered the principles to be applied by the Court in ordering the production of documents by third parties under the Civil Procedure Rules.

Playing uncivil, tactical, inappropriate, old - school, trial by ambush games like: threatening to require proof of obviously valid records, holding back important documents until the last second, failing to fulfil undertakings until the eve of trial, delivering new expert's reports during the trial, saying untrue things to counsel opposite (whether knowingly or not), failing to prepare examinations in advance to «wing it» at trial, refusing to agree to the admissibility of relevant documents while requiring changes to be made to irrelevant ones, refusing to share costs of joint expenses, refusing to cooperate on court ordered process matters, are all wrongful.

In light of the defendant's failure and unwillingness to comply with the order made by Stinson J., its late disclosure of important documents, counsel's uncivil conduct leading up to and at the trial, and the repeated failures of the defendant's counsel to comply with the directions and orders of the court, it is appropriate for the court to exercise its discretion to deny the successful defendant its costs.

That distinction is recognized in Ontario in Rule 30.02 (4): (4) The court may order a party to disclose all relevant documents in the possession, control or power of the party's subsidiary or affiliated corporation or of a corporation controlled directly or indirectly by the party and to produce for inspection all such documents that are not privileged.

If, after defence filed, it appears from the record that a document relating to the issues between the parties is in the possession of a third party, he may, upon summons authorized by the court, be ordered to give communication of it to the parties, unless he shows cause why he should not do so.

Whatever else may be included in the expression «non-legal»» or «non-judicial» documents and papers» pertaining» or «relating» to commercial cases, and whatever notional or practical difficulties might arise in relation to the need for service or delivery of all such documents relating to the proceedings on the KRG (correspondence etc), the Order and the inter partes application, as a matter of DIFC procedural law, had to be served on it and the Article provided that they «shall be sent / dispatched» by the «authority or the competent legal officer / judicial body or officer concerned» to the court of the district where the defendant resided.

Besides a lawyer, the plaintiff needs to retain a bailiff (to actually seize the documents) and an independent supervising lawyer (appointed by the court) to take custody of the seized records and deal with them as ordered by the Court subsequecourt) to take custody of the seized records and deal with them as ordered by the Court subsequeCourt subsequently.

(a) The Defendant (the «KRG») applied on 3 July 2017 to set aside the Order of this Court made ex parte on 29 May 2017 by which it recognised and, subject to its terms, enforced two arbitration awards made in London under the auspices of the LCIA and permitted alternative service of the order made and other documents on the KRG's London solicitors who had acted for them in the arbitraOrder of this Court made ex parte on 29 May 2017 by which it recognised and, subject to its terms, enforced two arbitration awards made in London under the auspices of the LCIA and permitted alternative service of the order made and other documents on the KRG's London solicitors who had acted for them in the arbitraorder made and other documents on the KRG's London solicitors who had acted for them in the arbitration.

In the Chancery Division of the High Court, Rory Brown appeared for the liquidator respondents to an application by solicitors for costs of compliance with orders obtained by the liquidators for production of documents relating to an alleged international fraud of an estimated # 500,000,000.

The question is: do the documents in dispute, ie, MSP and Pharmanet, come withing the terms of either Rule 7 - 1 (1)(a), ie, documents that can be used by a party of record to prove or disprove a material fact or that will be referred to at trial or, if not, do they come under category 7 - 1 (11), generally, in the vernacular, referred to as the Guano documents... There is no question that there is a higher duty on a party requesting documents under the second category... that in addition to requesting, they must explain and satisfy either the party being demanded or the court, if an order is sought, with an explanation «with reasonable specificity that indicates the reason why such additional documents or classes of documents should be disclosed», and again, there is no doubt that the new Rules have limited the obligation for production in the first instance to the first category that I have described and has reduced or lessened the obligation for production in general...

Rules For Production of Documents The decision Nikolic v. Olson 2011 BCSC 125 is a veritable chestnut of law relating to the principles of court ordered production of documents held by third parties, whether within or outside, the Province of British Documents The decision Nikolic v. Olson 2011 BCSC 125 is a veritable chestnut of law relating to the principles of court ordered production of documents held by third parties, whether within or outside, the Province of British documents held by third parties, whether within or outside, the Province of British Columbia.

In his recent decision in SA Capital Growth Corp. v. Brooks, Justice Pattillo of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) addressed the question of whether a court - appointed receiver should be required to disclose documents and information obtained by it as a result of a court - ordered investigation to one of the subjects of the investigation, where that party is facing allegations by the Ontario Securities Commission («OSC&raqCourt of Justice (Commercial List) addressed the question of whether a court - appointed receiver should be required to disclose documents and information obtained by it as a result of a court - ordered investigation to one of the subjects of the investigation, where that party is facing allegations by the Ontario Securities Commission («OSC&raqcourt - appointed receiver should be required to disclose documents and information obtained by it as a result of a court - ordered investigation to one of the subjects of the investigation, where that party is facing allegations by the Ontario Securities Commission («OSC&raqcourt - ordered investigation to one of the subjects of the investigation, where that party is facing allegations by the Ontario Securities Commission («OSC»).

the document has been read to or by the court, or referred to, at a hearing held in public (although the court may make an order restricting or prohibiting the use of such a document);

(2) In addition to the considerations listed in subrule (1), in determining whether to order a party or other person to produce one or more documents, the court shall consider whether such an order would result in an excessive volume of documents required to be produced by the party or other person.

(4) Starlight Shipping Co v Allianz Marine & Ors; Brit UW Ltd & Ors v Starlight & Ors; Brit UW & Ors v Imperial Marine & Ors [2014] EWHC 3068 (Comm); [2015] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 747; [2014] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 579; [2014] 2 C.L.C. 503; [2015] Lloyd's Rep. I.R. 54 — relief granted to both insurers and employees and agents of the insurers who were intended to benefit from the settlement of the insurance claim - relief by way of specific performance and injunctions was tailored to the particular circumstances which included the prohibition on anti-suit injunction to restrain the Greek proceedings — assured ordered to execute documents recording the meaning and effect of the settlement agreement (including settlement of claims against the servants and agents who were third parties to the original settlement) so that the same could be placed before the foreign court to assist in the recognition and enforcement of the English judgment in Greece under the Judgments Regulation.

If a court has issued an order on non-return pursuant to Article 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention, the court must immediately either directly or through its central authority, transmit a copy of the court order on non-return and of the relevant documents, in particular a transcript of the hearings before the court, to the court with jurisdiction or central authority in the Member State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention, as determined by national law.

Counsel should disclose, not only underlying documents, but copies of all summaries / charts sufficiently in advance in order to obtain stipulations regarding accuracy and admissibility or to allow for a pretrial examination and rulings by the court.