Sentences with phrase «even public law cases»

I do not recall any case (even Public Law cases involving several children) which has taken so long or has left me with such a feeling of failure on the part of the Family Justice System.

Not exact matches

The U.S. has strict laws that punish misrepresenting the truth about people in public forums, but a new case before the Supreme Court could make even presenting innocuous, but mistaken information a punitive offense.

So, even in the case of the president as complete public property, where does the law end and where does sociology begin?

«The lurid details underlying the case — where county contracts and legislation were traded for personal favors — were laid out for all to see, leaving the public now to wonder whether even the most brazen acts are beyond the grasp of the law.»

In some cases, agencies have made rulings that even contradict the written law, creating interesting legal questions and damaging to some degree the public trust.

That wasn't always the case though, as New York's blue sky law was initially weaker than that of many other states, until the New York Supreme Court determined in People v Federated Radio Corporation (1926) that the act's purpose was to «defeat all kinds of fraud in connection with the sale of securities and commodities and to defeat all unsubstantial and visionary schemes in relation thereto whereby the public is fraudulently exploited,» even if the fraud can't be proven to have «originated in any actual evil design or contrivance to perpetrate fraud or injury upon others.»

Waivers should not be sought except in the areas of law enforcement or public health and, even in those cases, they should not be given to administrative personnel, he said.

And this particular work — it was authored in 1823; any work authored prior to 1923 is available as «fair use» to the public (free to use without permission); even according to current copyright laws and as for any work, copyright expiration occurs 70 years after the author's death — in this case the author died in 1863, meaning his copyright would have expired (if applying current laws) in 1933.

That's why a group of parents and students in Connecticut, with support from the nonprofit students» rights organization Students Matter, filed a case last month in federal court challenging their state's laws «that knowingly and actively prevent students from accessing even minimally acceptable public school options.»

Janus wants the Supreme Court to overturn its 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, a case brought by a Detroit public school teacher who challenged a Michigan law that required him to pay agency fees to the Detroit Federation of Teachers (in an amount equivalent to the union's dues), even though he refused to join the union.

This new groundbreaking case challenges a set of state laws and policies that actively prevent students from accessing even minimally acceptable public school options.

Even after the Ministerio Publico Federal (the Federal Prosecutor Bureau) declared that no crime had been committed in any of the above - mentioned cases and issued a technical note clarifying that nudity and representations of sexuality are permitted in cultural and artistic exhibitions, the consequences continue to unfold: the state of Espirito Santo has passed a law prohibiting the exhibition of photographs, texts, drawings, paintings, films and videos containing nude scenes or references to sexual acts in public spaces; city councilors of the state of Rio Grande do Sul are currently trying to ban books in public libraries that, they argue, expose children to «permissive ideologies, [detrimental] to the formation of character.»

However, even for slander per se, there is the question of whether Spencer and Christy are «public figures,» in which case they would have to show «actual malice» to actually prevail in a defamation law suit, meaning the comment was false, and Trenberth et al. knew or had reason to know it was false.

Moreover, it is apparent from the case - law -LSB-...] that the legislation indicated «that property not belonging to private persons shall be administered and alienated according to the specific rules applicable to them; that, in respect of property belonging to public entities, even those pursuing industrial and commercial activities, the principle of non-seizability of that property precludes recourse to private - law enforcement remedies; that only the creditor who has obtained an enforceable favourable judicial decision having acquired the force of res judicata and ordering a public entity to pay, even provisionally, an amount of money, may have enforced the specific rules [applicable].

The EU layer of public service regulation further adds to this complexity as it interacts in many different ways with the national legal frameworks in this field: EU law may structure national legal norms, coordinate the provision of services between the Member States, bring about minimal or maximal standards (e.g. pertaining to quality, ubiquity or affordability of the services provided), comprise detailed regulation or even set prices for the provision of public services as in the case of mobile roaming tariffs.

Many states» public records and open meeting laws were enacted years ago — in some cases even before the Internet came about, let alone Facebook or Twitter.

Presumably serving as a commissioner for an affidavit is an even stronger case in the same sense, as the document is a public document (within the meaning of the Apostille Convention anyway — not sure the term has much sense in a common law jurisdiction otherwise), and the commissioner is supposed to identify the signer with some certainty and understand the oath, declaration or affirmation to be genuine and unforced.

The lead paint industry defeated those cases in seven states, but in 2013 Judge James Kleinberg of Santa Clara County, California, ruled that Sherwin - Williams Co., NL Industries Inc. and ConAgra Grocery Products Co. violated California's public nuisance law by promoting lead paint even though they should have known of its dangers.

«More on Law Firms Going Public Main Case Dismissed as Untimely Even Though Judge Granted Extension»

The article notes a recent Supreme Court case, Board of Education v. Tom F. that let stand a decision permitting a wealthy parent to obtain reimbursement for private school education under federal law, even where the parent did not give the public school an opportunity to address the child's needs and immediately places the child in private school.

It's probably the case that the complete absence of copyright in laws wouldn't hurt public accessibility and might even encourage further commercial promulgation at relatively low cost.

That's not the case here because the related legal argument is not the kind of stuff that gets the general public interested — even I'm not going to go into detail on the case law for now.

We remember how, shortly after the atrocious decision in Johnson & Johnson v. Karl, 647 S.E. 2d 899 (W. Va. 2007), rejecting altogether the learned intermediary rule, litigation tourists visiting West Virginia argued that Karl represented that state's «public policy» and therefore the learned intermediary rule could not apply even to their out - of - state cases under the «public policy» exception to the ordinary rules for sorting out choice of law issues.

[25] Note, however, that in Kennedy, Lord Carnwath, one of the Court's leading public lawyers and someone with significant experience of European law and public law as a practitioner and judge, confessed himself «unpersuaded that domestic judicial review, even adopting the most flexible view of the developing jurisprudence, can achieve the same practical effect in a case such as the present as full merits review under... the HRA».

For example, although homeless people were successful in their Charter claim in Victoria (City) v Adams, this judicial bias is evident even in that case — the first to consider the relevance of international human rights law, including concerns and recommendations from the CESCR, to section 7 of the Charter.284 The BC Court of Appeal in Adams upheld the trial judge's decision that the City of Victoria was violating homeless persons» constitutional rights to life, liberty and security of the person by prohibiting them from erecting temporary overhead shelters in public parks.285 However the Court of Appeal was insistent on framing its decision as a negative «restraint» on government, rather than as a positive obligation.

The regulatory fever is so strong that even Peter Swire, a privacy - law professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology who testified last year in an Irish court on behalf of Facebook, recently laid out the legal case for why Google and Facebook might be regulated as public utilities.