Access to justice for everyday citizens can be dramatically improved by introducing platform technology that
effectively opens courts to everyone.
Not exact matches
«She brings tremendous energy and intensity, she attacks the rim aggressively, finds the
open player, hits the
open three and defends
effectively in the
open court.»
An order that limits publication of certain information for a fixed time period, while permitting full access to the material or the relevant proceeding, has a less deleterious effect on the
open court principle, and associated individual rights, than does an order that
effectively locks the courtroom door to the media and the public.
This Model Policy reduces the issue of access to
court information in a few simple access rules,
effectively achieving a recommended balance between the right of the public to
open courts with the right of an individual to privacy.
Another case which has recently been settled without being resolved on the merits (Waldman v. Thompson Reuteurs Canada Ltd. — discussed in my blog post here) raised the issue of whether the
open courts principle
effectively creates an implied public licence to use any materials submitted to the
courts as part of
court proceedings.
«For example, even though she regularly bemoans overburdened
court budgets, California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil - Sakauye last year wrote a precedent - defying 4 - 3 decision that effectively throws open her state's already packed courthouses to an inestimable number of out - of - state plaintiffs.&r
court budgets, California Supreme
Court Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil - Sakauye last year wrote a precedent - defying 4 - 3 decision that effectively throws open her state's already packed courthouses to an inestimable number of out - of - state plaintiffs.&r
Court Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil - Sakauye last year wrote a precedent - defying 4 - 3 decision that
effectively throws
open her state's already packed courthouses to an inestimable number of out - of - state plaintiffs.»
But by
opening the door for the
court to look at the issue, the judge was
effectively saying an e-mail exchange could very well prove to be binding.