Sentences with phrase «established case law which»

Not exact matches

(It is well established case law that an attorney can't represent a client in which he himself is a witness in the case.)

In neither case does it reflect a disrespectful view of divine law (which both the Old and the New Testament see as grounded in divine grace), but rather it refers to what is bound to happen to the law when we start «handling» it and using it to establish our own righteousness rather than letting the rule and righteousness of God dwell and become embodied in our midst.

The threat to this idea of secularism arises form religious fundamentalism which is afraid of insecurity through change in traditional religious dogmas, ritual practices of purity and impurity in social laws; the threat also comes from communalism which seeks political power for one's religious community or in the case of Hindutva wants to establish a Hindu state.

The test case is the first of its kind and will establish case law, demonstrating the extent to which the courts are willing to punish people who are breaking injunctions online, Whittingdale said.

This means that they are only subject to personal liability for money damages in cases where the meaning of the law with respect to the situation in question is «clearly established» which usually means that it involves a legal issue that has been resolved in a binding case law precedent.

His case, which is being supported by Dignity in Dying, hopes to establish that the current law is incompatible with the Human Right Act 1998, specifically with regard to Article 8 on the right to respect for private and family life.

Considering the state's grounds of appeal which stated, among other things, that the trial judge erred in law when he stated that the prosecution woefully failed to establish a prima facie case against Woyome, Mr Justice Ofoe said that position was flawed.

A case involving a member of the Woodstock Town Board has drawn attention to the local ethics law, which seeks to establish standards of conduct for town officers, employees, and consultants, and to procedures followed by the volunteer board that administers and enforces the statute.

The case overturned the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson in which the U.S. Supreme Court, in all its racist glory, claimed that state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students were acceptable.

(d) In the case of an alleged act or practice prohibited by this title which occurs in a State, or political subdivision of a State, which has no State or local law prohibiting such act or practice, a civil action may be brought under subsection (a): Provided, That the court may refer the matter to the Community Relations Service established by title X of this Act for as long as the court believes there is a reasonable possibility of obtaining voluntary compliance, but for not more than sixty days: Provided further, That upon expiration of such sixty - day period, the court may extend such period for an additional period, not to exceed a cumulative total of one hundred and twenty days, if it believes there then exists a reasonable possibility of securing voluntary compliance.

In summary, a strong case can be made that the US emissions reduction commitment for 2025 of 26 % to 28 % clearly fails to pass minimum ethical scrutiny when one considers: (a) the 2007 IPCC report on which the US likely relied upon to establish a 80 % reduction target by 2050 also called for 25 % to 40 % reduction by developed countries by 2020, and (b) although reasonable people may disagree with what «equity» means under the UNFCCC, the US commitments can't be reconciled with any reasonable interpretation of what «equity» requires, (c) the United States has expressly acknowledged that its commitments are based upon what can be achieved under existing US law not on what is required of it as a mater of justice, (d) it is clear that more ambitious US commitments have been blocked by arguments that alleged unacceptable costs to the US economy, arguments which have ignored US responsibilities to those most vulnerable to climate change, and (e) it is virtually certain that the US commitments can not be construed to be a fair allocation of the remaining carbon budget that is available for the entire world to limit warming to 2 °C.

First, the member state could argue that its obligations under EU law take priority over its BIT obligations, in which case the priority of one obligation over the other can only be established by applying conflict rules, but such arguments have not been raised in intra-EU arbitrations (apart from conflict arguments challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunals which is a different matter).

(2) The judicial dicta in the cases deciding the ambit and scope of the status of EU citizenship and rights contained therein has established that the telos of the positive law is to establish a fundamental and autonomous status of equality for all Member State nationals which guarantees a set of political and economic rights implemented via secondary legislation;

In its Judgment of 20 September 2012 in case T ‑ 154 / 10 French Republic vs. European Commission, the General Court of the EU (GC) has established a new test of «bankruptcy - proofness» as an advantage contrary to Article 107 (1) TFEU that may generate a significant shake up in the control of State aid granted (implicitly) to establishments of an industrial and commercial character (EICC, or EPIC in their French acronym)-- ie legal entities governed by public law which have distinct legal personality from the State, financial independence and certain special powers, including the performance of one or more public service tasks.

Article 56 TFEU requires not only the elimination of all discrimination against providers of services on grounds of nationality or the fact that they are established in a Member State other than that where the services are to be provided, but also the abolition of any restriction, even if it applies without distinction to national providers of services and to those of other Member States, which is liable to prohibit, impede or render less advantageous the activities of a provider of services established in another Member State where he lawfully provides similar services (Case C ‑ 475 / 11 Konstantinides [2013] ECR, paragraph 44 and the case - law citCase C ‑ 475 / 11 Konstantinides [2013] ECR, paragraph 44 and the case - law citcase - law cited).

Not to mention, our law firm operates on a contingency fee basis in auto accident cases, which means that we will not charge you unless a successful verdict or settlement has been established and you are properly compensated.

... I conclude that the principles of law which govern the exercise of the Court's discretion in the circumstances of this case may in summary form be stated as follows: The defendants must establish that there has been inordinate delay and that this delay is inexcusable.

It could be argued that the ECJ had not been able to properly establish the scope of Article 101 TFEU by declaratory judgment, in accordance with the principles of civil law on which the EU legal order is supposedly based, as there was no earlier case in which it could «clarify» this.

And, last but not least, looking at the result of the case — the Court declared it had no jurisdiction — the Court also seems to be willing to let fundamental rights cases be decided at the national level, when there is no convincing connection to EU law which would establish its own jurisdiction.

The interesting part is here that the Court established a set of criteria which — at least in my reading — seem to be destined to become benchmarks for future cases to establish in a given situation whether Member States are «implementing» the law of the EU and would thus be bound be EU fundamental rights.

Is there any case law or precedent which establishes that a contract can have multiple «shall not exceed» bounds without requiring a final «take the minimum» clause?

Moreover, it would be an interesting addition to the analysis of the Deckmyn case to draw a comparison with the ECtHR case law which dealt with similar issues of balancing the copyrights and the right of freedom of speech (for example the recent case Ashby Donald and others v. France) and to established ECtHR case law on protection of political speech (which under the established case law of ECtHR is given the highest level of protection).

It also makes clear that the criteria established in preceding case - law are mere guidelines which interrelate and have to be discussed against the background of the respective facts of each individual case.

So, ignoring the every day English language meaning of the words, is there in fact a clear and precise definition of «assault» (in which case some sources are simply using it incorrectly), or do I just need to accept that there is confusion, even within the law itself, and rely on context to establish in any given instance which meaning is meant?

Prior to her graduation from Thomas M. Cooley Law School, Ms. Nicolette interned at Javerbaum Wurgaft where she provided key assistance in formulating a major amicus brief before the New Jersey Supreme Court in a case where, in 2013, the Court established a constitutional right to privacy in cell phone location information, a first - of - its - kind decision which is having national reverberations.

It is well - established case law that Member States can only justify distinctly applicable measures by relying on the express derogations contained in the Treaty which in turn are interpreted narrowly.

Withdrawal of consent also attracts the Right to be Forgotten, as established in EU law in the Costeja case, which is now codified in the GDPR as the Right to Erasure.

Although the vicarious liability provision does not apply to harassment in employment, there is long - established case law of the Tribunal which supports that liability for harassment by an employee can be imposed on an organization respondent where the harassing employee forms part of the «directing mind» of the organization respondent, on the basis of the «organic theory of corporate liability.»

This interpretation goes against established case - law (LSG v Tele2 and UPC Telekabel v Constantin, see also Mc Fadden v Sony Music, as discussed on this Blog) which has traditionally interpreted the notion of intermediary rather widely by allowing injunctions also against subsequent communications to the public.

This makes them quite different from normal appeals, which involve cases that arise out of specific concrete circumstances, that come with a context that has been judicially explored by the lower courts, that have an established set of relevant facts that have been tested through an adversary process, and that are essentially retrospective, arriving at general and abstract questions only as they emerge from those concrete fact and law circumstances.

49... Although I agree... that mental injury may be compensable in some form at international law, neither the intervener nor any other party has established that a peremptory norm of international law has now come into existence which would completely oust the doctrine of state immunity and allow domestic courts to entertain claims in the circumstances of this case.

It is not a general principle of contract law establishing requirements which must be met in each case.

This exception, according to case law that has been established for about a century, [5] includes the case in which fundamental requirements of due process have been violated in the foreign proceedings.

The question on this appeal is whether the trial judge erred in law in the manner in which she addressed what remained of the Crown's case: that the driving was such a marked departure from the standard expected as to establish mens rea on an objective basis by inference and attribution, and that the respondent's own evidence did not support an exculpatory defence.

That article codifies the ECJ's case - law on implied exclusive treaty - making powers, and in particular the AETR doctrine which establishes such competence if the conclusion of the agreement in question «may affect common rules or alter their scope».

This is in stark contrast with the general law of search, established in cases such as R. v. Mann, which prevents peace officers from using a specific, narrowly defined search power to engage in a «fishing expedition» for unrelated incriminating evidence.

These may be set based off state and / or federal legislation as well as case law, which is established based on the outcome of former cases.

According to the ABCA, based on established case law (RM v JS, 2013 ABCA 441 (CanLII)-RRB-, the exercise of a court's discretion to consider the wishes of a child is dependent on two pre-conditions: i) that the child objects; and ii) that the child has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of the child's views.

The turning point in the case was whether Congress had power to authorize the Territorial Legislature of Florida to pass the law under which the Territorial court was established, whose decree was brought before this court for revision.

Although today most real estate laws are based upon federal and state statutes, there are still cases in which there are unique issues which arise that require judges and lawyers to follow the decisions of judges which were established under the common law system.

Most criminal law is established by statute, however in the UK there are many important criminal cases which have created legal principles.

In the case of an alleged unlawful practice occurring in a State which has a law prohibiting discrimination in employment because of age and establishing or authorizing a State authority to grant or seek relief from such discriminatory practice, no suit may be brought under section 626 of this title [section 7] before the expiration of sixty days after proceedings have been commenced under the State law, unless such proceedings have been earlier terminated: Provided, That such sixty - day period shall be extended to one hundred and twenty days during the first year after the effective date of such State law.

He has litigated a number of important immigration cases which established new Ninth Circuit law, including Quintero - Salazar v. Keisler, 506 F. 3d 688 (9th Cir.

As explained by counsel in that case, Mark West, in 2011 Civil Justice Quarterly 367, Hobhouse J had in fact been shown a «considerable volume of authority» which, in short, established and confirmed that common law counts for money had and received were actions upon the case, and were expressly accorded a six - year period (as were actions of account) by the terms of s 3 of the Limitation Act 1623.

I've not spilled quite as much real ink (online is different) about the recent SCC decision in Resurfice v. Hanke which has one of those «out of the blue» pronouncements of law that had nothing to do with the disposition of the issues in case: the SCC's declaration that fault and increased risk may sometimes be enough to satisfy tort's causation requirement, even though the injured person can not establish, on the balance of probability, that the fault was a (factual) cause of the injury.

The term suggests that the missing older cases are somehow less important, despite the fact that they may have establish fundamental principles of law on which subsequent cases are based.

The main way in which child custody cases differ from all other areas of the law is that the court is, rather than attempting to establish the facts of past events, as in a criminal trial, attempting to establish the likelihood of future actions by one or more of the parties to the case.

And be it further enacted, That all the said courts of the United States shall have power to grant new trials, in cases where there has been a trial by jury for reasons for which new trials have usually been granted in the courts of law; and shall have power to impose and administer all necessary oaths or affirmations, and to punish by fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of said courts, all contempts of authority in any cause or hearing before the same; and to make and establish all necessary rules for the orderly conducting business in the said courts, provided such rules are not repugnant to the laws of the United States.

Parties have obligations under contracts, which in most cases are established by the contract itself rather than the law.

Then you should also look at both the Bumper Development case at Bumper Development Corp. v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1991] 1 WLR 1362 (CA) and the Mallick v. Mallick case of 1925 which says, «a Hindu idol is according to the long established authority founded upon the religious customs of the Hindus, and the recognition thereof by the courts of law in India and the Privy Council a juristic entity.