Sentences with phrase «engaged in a court action»

Both are engaged in a court action to resolve the outcome of the Conservative Party primary race, which hinges on two absentee ballots.

Not exact matches

The first line of cases began with In re Daou Sys., where the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court's decision dismissing a Section 10 (b) action on the ground that the plaintiffs had not alleged any disclosures that defendants were engaging in improper accounting practiceIn re Daou Sys., where the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court's decision dismissing a Section 10 (b) action on the ground that the plaintiffs had not alleged any disclosures that defendants were engaging in improper accounting practicein improper accounting practices.

International organizations like UNFPA are engaging in a full - court press to increase contraceptive prevalence in Africa (now the world's lowest at 27 percent) and to liberalize abortion laws by several means, including a controversial continent - wide framework called the Maputo Plan of Action.

Mr Jones can sell his shares currently at a small profit, so why is he bothering to take action through Maurice Blackburn and Bentham IMF, who are determined to use the court system and engage Treasury Wines in the proceedings.

Publication of the editorial came on the same day as two other events of note, first, the release of a new book, Back in the Game, in which sports neurologist Jeffrey Kutcher and award - winning journalist Joanne Gerstner repeatedly and pointedly criticize the media for «irresponsible» reporting on CTE, and second, the filing of a class action lawsuit in federal court in Los Angeles against Pop Warner, USA Football, and the National Operating Committee on Standards For Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE) which assumes as scientific fact that repetitive head impacts sustained in youth football «exposed» plaintiffs» sons to CTE, and led one to engage in «erratic and reckless behavior» resulting in his untimely death, and the other to take his own life.

«Definitely, whilst a serving judge, Your Lordship would have invoked this principle in the resolution of some cases, It is therefore expected that Your Lordship should not be a party to or consciously engage in or encourage an action that will amount to an affront to the authority and integrity of the court or stymie the efforts and capacity of the court to do justice in the pending case».

To this end, some have threatened a court action against their employer to explain why it would engage in such action that amounts to public deceit.

The mega-popular dating site is engaging in «one of the biggest conspiracies ever executed on the Internet,» the class - action Manhattan Federal Court suit says.

(g) If the court finds that the respondent has intentionally engaged in or is intentionally engaging in an unlawful employment practice charged in the complaint, the court may enjoin the respondent from engaging in such unlawful employment practice, and order such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without back pay (payable by the employer, employment agency, or labor organization, as the case may be, responsible for the unlawful employment practice).

(a) Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights secured by this title, and that the pattern or practice is of such a nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of the rights herein described, the Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States by filing with it a complaint (1) signed by him (or in his absence the Acting Attorney General), (2) setting forth facts pertaining to such pattern or practice, and (3) requesting such preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order or other order against the person or persons responsible for such pattern or practice, as he deems necessary to insure the full enjoyment of the rights herein described.

(a) Whenever any person has engaged or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage in any act or practice prohibited by section 203, a civil action for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order, may be instituted by the person aggrieved and, upon timely application, the court may, in its discretion, permit the Attorney General to intervene in such civil action if he certifies that the case is of general public importance.

(a) Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights secured by this title, and that the pattern or practice is of such a nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of the rights herein described, the Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States by filing with it a complaint (1) signed by him (or in his absence the Acting Attorney General), (2) setting forth facts pertaining to such pattern or practice, and (3) requesting such relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order or other order against the person or persons responsible for such pattern or practice, as he deems necessary to insure the full enjoyment of the rights herein described.

The board or any person may bring an action in the district court to enjoin any person who is not a licensed veterinarian from engaging in the practice of veterinary medicine.

The parties to a putative class action lawsuit claiming that the federal courts» PACER system routinely overcharges for document downloads have asked the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for more time to engage in settlement discussions, agreeing that discussions so far have been productive.

Assume that Mr. Grutman's proposed test is as follows: «If the state long - arm statute is satisfied and defendant has engaged in purposeful conduct directed at the forum state out of which conduct the cause of action arises, and that conduct satisfies the minimum contacts under which substantial justice and fair play make it reasonable to hail defendant into court there, and the forum state has an interest in providing a forum to the plaintiff, then the forum has personal jurisdiction over the defendant for that cause of action.»

The policy at issue in this case, was crafted in such a way that in order to engage the insurer's duty to defend, it required the communication, during the policy period, by a third party, of an intention to hold the Jesuits responsible for damages.36 In this case, it was accepted by the parties, that if the claims were made within the temporal limits of the Policy, the duty to defend would have been engaged as the claims allege injuries that would fall within the policy.37 In fact the Court found one of the claims was made within the policy period and therefore did trigger the insurer's duty to defend.38 The rest of the claims however were found not to have been communicated during the policy period and, as a result, the insurer did not have a duty to defend the actions.39 The determination of whether a policy will be «claims - made» or «occurrence based» will depend on many factorin this case, was crafted in such a way that in order to engage the insurer's duty to defend, it required the communication, during the policy period, by a third party, of an intention to hold the Jesuits responsible for damages.36 In this case, it was accepted by the parties, that if the claims were made within the temporal limits of the Policy, the duty to defend would have been engaged as the claims allege injuries that would fall within the policy.37 In fact the Court found one of the claims was made within the policy period and therefore did trigger the insurer's duty to defend.38 The rest of the claims however were found not to have been communicated during the policy period and, as a result, the insurer did not have a duty to defend the actions.39 The determination of whether a policy will be «claims - made» or «occurrence based» will depend on many factorin such a way that in order to engage the insurer's duty to defend, it required the communication, during the policy period, by a third party, of an intention to hold the Jesuits responsible for damages.36 In this case, it was accepted by the parties, that if the claims were made within the temporal limits of the Policy, the duty to defend would have been engaged as the claims allege injuries that would fall within the policy.37 In fact the Court found one of the claims was made within the policy period and therefore did trigger the insurer's duty to defend.38 The rest of the claims however were found not to have been communicated during the policy period and, as a result, the insurer did not have a duty to defend the actions.39 The determination of whether a policy will be «claims - made» or «occurrence based» will depend on many factorin order to engage the insurer's duty to defend, it required the communication, during the policy period, by a third party, of an intention to hold the Jesuits responsible for damages.36 In this case, it was accepted by the parties, that if the claims were made within the temporal limits of the Policy, the duty to defend would have been engaged as the claims allege injuries that would fall within the policy.37 In fact the Court found one of the claims was made within the policy period and therefore did trigger the insurer's duty to defend.38 The rest of the claims however were found not to have been communicated during the policy period and, as a result, the insurer did not have a duty to defend the actions.39 The determination of whether a policy will be «claims - made» or «occurrence based» will depend on many factorIn this case, it was accepted by the parties, that if the claims were made within the temporal limits of the Policy, the duty to defend would have been engaged as the claims allege injuries that would fall within the policy.37 In fact the Court found one of the claims was made within the policy period and therefore did trigger the insurer's duty to defend.38 The rest of the claims however were found not to have been communicated during the policy period and, as a result, the insurer did not have a duty to defend the actions.39 The determination of whether a policy will be «claims - made» or «occurrence based» will depend on many factorIn fact the Court found one of the claims was made within the policy period and therefore did trigger the insurer's duty to defend.38 The rest of the claims however were found not to have been communicated during the policy period and, as a result, the insurer did not have a duty to defend the actions.39 The determination of whether a policy will be «claims - made» or «occurrence based» will depend on many factors.

The Chronicle reports that in October 2009, the lower court dismissed her case, finding that «H.S. had not been engaging in free speech because her actions conveyed no specific message to onlookers, other than disapproval» of the player.

However, if done in contemplation of divorce, the courts may take action adverse to the party who engaged in tactics designed to minimise the marital estate.

Because Thompson did not allege he himself engaged in any statutorily protected activity (i.e., did not oppose an unlawful employment practice, make a charge, testify, assist, or participate in an investigation), the court found by the plain language of the statute that Thompson was not included in the class of persons for whom Congress created a retaliation cause of action.

Where a litigant thereby understands the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct, and is instructed to recognize and document instances of unprofessional or vexatious conduct by opposing counsel, there should be clear cost consequences in court against the party shown to be engaging in such conduct, in addition to any reprimands or other disciplinary actions that might be instituted by the governing professional body.

penalizes the defendant for engaging in public participation «plaintiff» means a person who initiates or maintains a proceeding against a defendant; «proceeding» means any action, suit, matter, cause, counterclaim, appeal, or originating application that is brought in the Supreme Court or the Provincial Court, but does not include a prosecution for an offence or a crime; «public interest» means the whole of the subject matter invites public attention, or a matter in which the public has some substantial concern because it affects the welfare of citizens, or one to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached; «public participation» means communication or conduct aimed at influencing public opinion, or promoting further lawful action by the public or any government body, in relation to an issue of public interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper purpose.

Our attorneys regularly litigate complex unfair trade practices, antitrust, business torts and contract actions against major regional and national law firms and often serve as local counsel to out - of - state firms engaged in litigation in Connecticut state and federal courts.

Andrew has been engaged by Fortune 100 companies in the defense of class action suits brought in state and federal courts throughout the country.

We were engaged by a law firm to assist them in bringing a patent enforcement action in U.S. federal court on behalf of their Japanese client.

replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider's system or network.»

Attorning the jurisdiction of the courts, according to Justice Lang in M.J. Jones Inc. v. Kingsway General Insurance Co., «is well - accepted law that a foreign defendant that engages on the merits of the action will be taken to have «attorned» to the domestic court's jurisdiction.

The Court said that this sub-section did not require, as a precondition to the cause of action arising and the limitation period beginning to run, that the parties actually engage in discussions and actually be unable to agree.

The Court found that it would be improper to engage in any analysis of the Ethics Commissioner's actions, as these actions fall within a recognized category of parliamentary privilege.

Texas resident Karen McPeters has brought a class action lawsuit against Montgomery County Judge Fredrick E. Edwards, Montgomery County Court Clerk Barbara Gladden Adamick, and LexisNexis claiming that requiring her to exclusively file documents through LexisNexis» FileandServe product is a violation of US and Texas laws, and that the county and LexisNexis are engaged in RICO violations with their exclusive agreement.

Collaborative attorneys can not engage in contested court actions or hearings, so there will be no depositions, no formal requests for discovery, and no motions for contempt.

The information will be restored in not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counternotification, unless Relationship Coaching Institute first receives notice from the complaining party that such complaining party has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the alleged infringer from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on this Site.

The government argued that corporations could establish political action committees to freely engage in these types of communications and so their speech was not curtailed by BCRA, but the Court determined that this did not remove the fact that the BCRA prohibited direct political speech by corporations.

3d 143 A)- small claims court's dismissal of actions against broker affirmed where the evidence fairly supports a finding that the broker satisfactorily performed its contractual obligations and had no part in any fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining plaintiff's agreement to lease the apartment; claims that broker engaged in dishonest or misleading advertising or demonstrated untrustworthiness or incompetency in violation of RPL § 441 (c) are matters solely within in the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State