Sentences with phrase «evidence by court order»

The organizations want to ensure that it's possible to collect evidence by court order, not expand government's surveillance authority, according to a report on the summit.

Not exact matches

``... The results of the investigations conducted by both the DOI and KCDA into Tyess Crespo's actions, as well as the circumstances surrounding those actions, that were the subject of Justice Fisher's order, produced no actionable evidence of criminal conduct by any party beyond those charges contained in the complaint filed in court against Ms. Crespo.»

Judge Pamela K. Chen of the Federal District Court in Brooklyn ordered a postponement of the Republican congress member's criminal trial until Feb. 2 to give his defense team time to examine evidence gathered by the prosecution, including tape recorded conversations with potential witnesses.

However, the former National Security Adviser gave a brief evidence in court and later told the court that he was incapacity to give accurate account of what transferred in the Office of the National Security Adviser in 2014 because he had been clamped into detention for over two years now in spite of bails granted by three different High Courts and ECOWAS Court of Justice which ordered government to immediately release from detencourt and later told the court that he was incapacity to give accurate account of what transferred in the Office of the National Security Adviser in 2014 because he had been clamped into detention for over two years now in spite of bails granted by three different High Courts and ECOWAS Court of Justice which ordered government to immediately release from detencourt that he was incapacity to give accurate account of what transferred in the Office of the National Security Adviser in 2014 because he had been clamped into detention for over two years now in spite of bails granted by three different High Courts and ECOWAS Court of Justice which ordered government to immediately release from detenCourt of Justice which ordered government to immediately release from detention.

But when the legislation passed, the only available evidence about the program consisted of testimony; a dozen or so empirical studies by the program's own staff that used primitive quasi-experimental designs; and the most - cited single study confounded the court - ordered introduction of the program with a simultaneously ordered reduction in class sizes of 40 percent.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant had ordered L.A. Unified to show that it was using test scores in evaluations by Tuesday after ruling earlier this year that state law required such data as evidence of whether teachers have helped their students progress academically.

(c) Within twenty days after the service upon any person charged under section 706 of a demand by the Commission for the production of documentary evidence or for permission to examine or to copy evidence in conformity with the provisions of section 709 (a), such person may file in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which he resides, is found, or transacts business, and serve upon the Commission a petition for an order of such court modifying or setting aside such demand.

(b) If the respondent named in a charge filed under section 706 fails or refuses to comply with a demand of the Commission for permission to examine or to copy evidence in conformity with the provisions of section 709 (a), or if any person required to comply with the provisions of section 709 (c) or (d) fails or refuses to do so, or if any person fails or refuses to comply with a demand by the Commission to give testimony under oath, the United States district court for the district in which such person is found, resides, or transacts business, shall, upon application of the Commission, have jurisdiction to issue to such person an order requiring him to comply with the provisions of section 709 (c) or (d) or to comply with the demand of the Commission, but the attendance of a witness may not be required outside the State where he is found, resides, or transacts business and the production of evidence may not be required outside the State where such evidence is kept.

Accused went to cottage of JC with whom she previously cohabited — Accused found JC with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, and accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against conviction dismissed — Although trial judge did not address analytical steps in order, he properly analyzed evidence and concluded that injuries sustained by victim were not accidental and could not have occurred in any other fashion than as stated by victim — Having provided reasons for accepting victim's evidence, trial judge was entitled to reject accused's evidence — Trial judge's reasoning, though skeletal, permitted accused and appellate court to determine how and why finding resulted.

At the same time, the Arbitration Law sets out the circumstances in which the courts may support and supervise the arbitral process by, for example, granting orders in relation to interim measures, the taking of evidence and staying court proceedings in favour of arbitration.

In my view, in order to justify a Charter limit, the record of evidence considered by the line decision maker should demonstrate the elements of accountability, intelligibility, adequacy and transparency courts expect from administrative tribunals.

There was little evidence of any significant damages awards until December 2016, when, according to White and Williams LLP, the Beijing IP Court ordered defendant Hengbao Co., Ltd. to pay $ 7.1 million in damages for infringing a single data encryption patent owned by Watchdata System Co. Ltd..

The defendants did not know that in order to present evidence in a way that will be considered by a judge, a party must do so either by testifying themselves in court, or call witnesses to do the same.

However, while the court determined that the accused had a right to challenge the order, the SCC ultimately concluded that the evidence was properly obtained by police.

After careful review of the affidavit evidence filed by both parties, the court found that their marriage contract was partially enforceable and ordered the husband to pay the wife the sum of $ 15,846.

Amongst other things, the court was told that workers had not been provided with health and safety training; fall protection equipment was not provided by the company; the injured worker was wearing dress shoes not safety footwear; the modified platform on the order picker was on an angle and did not have any features to prevent slipping; further safety concerns involving the use of order pickers were observed by the Ministry of Labour following the accident; the MOL was told that the father of a third director would direct workers to work without safety precautions; and there was evidence that an unknown person had attached a safety lanyard to the involved order picker before the Ministry of Labour arrived to investigate the accident.

Scott's own conviction has since been overturned by the Alberta Court of Appeal, which ordered a new trial with the consent of the Crown on the basis that the evidence at her trial did not support a conviction for second - degree murder.

But a question that definitely needs to be considered and addressed by Congress and the courts is whether the government should have this enormous prosecutorial power to leverage individuals against each other in order to obtain evidence for a prosecution on the individual who decides not to enter a plea.

In order for compensation to be awarded by the court, sufficient evidence must be put forth by the victim that shows the personal injuries sustained were a result of negligence by the defendant.

(Order, p. 2) As the court notes in its summary of the order, an acquittal can issue either when a jury returns a not - guilty verdict, or «when a trial court grants a defendant's new trial motion for evidentiary insufficiency... or dismisses a case... for evidentiary insufficiency» (Id., pp. 2 — 3) The essence of the court's decision is in two parts: (1) The new trial motion should not have been granted because there was sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Stern on counts of conspiracy; and (2) Because the trial court did not rule on the majority of the issues raised in Stern's motion for a new trial, those issues have yet to be decided, and should be addressed on remand by the court of appOrder, p. 2) As the court notes in its summary of the order, an acquittal can issue either when a jury returns a not - guilty verdict, or «when a trial court grants a defendant's new trial motion for evidentiary insufficiency... or dismisses a case... for evidentiary insufficiency» (Id., pp. 2 — 3) The essence of the court's decision is in two parts: (1) The new trial motion should not have been granted because there was sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Stern on counts of conspiracy; and (2) Because the trial court did not rule on the majority of the issues raised in Stern's motion for a new trial, those issues have yet to be decided, and should be addressed on remand by the court of apporder, an acquittal can issue either when a jury returns a not - guilty verdict, or «when a trial court grants a defendant's new trial motion for evidentiary insufficiency... or dismisses a case... for evidentiary insufficiency» (Id., pp. 2 — 3) The essence of the court's decision is in two parts: (1) The new trial motion should not have been granted because there was sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Stern on counts of conspiracy; and (2) Because the trial court did not rule on the majority of the issues raised in Stern's motion for a new trial, those issues have yet to be decided, and should be addressed on remand by the court of appeals.

A new trial was ordered by the appeal court and ordered to allow previously denied discovery video into evidence.

That is not a problem because the Supreme Court's mandate, having granted leave, is to make the decision that ought to have been made by the lower court from which the appeal comes; or order a new trial if that is the proper decision (if the decision appealed from was «against the weight of the evidence); or remand the appeal or any part of the appeal to the court appealed from for additional consideration in accordance with the direction of the Court: the Supreme Court of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S - 26Court's mandate, having granted leave, is to make the decision that ought to have been made by the lower court from which the appeal comes; or order a new trial if that is the proper decision (if the decision appealed from was «against the weight of the evidence); or remand the appeal or any part of the appeal to the court appealed from for additional consideration in accordance with the direction of the Court: the Supreme Court of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S - 26court from which the appeal comes; or order a new trial if that is the proper decision (if the decision appealed from was «against the weight of the evidence); or remand the appeal or any part of the appeal to the court appealed from for additional consideration in accordance with the direction of the Court: the Supreme Court of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S - 26court appealed from for additional consideration in accordance with the direction of the Court: the Supreme Court of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S - 26Court: the Supreme Court of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S - 26Court of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S - 26, ss.

The defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, assisted by his senior paralegal Grace Condello, charted out the evidence, inconsistencies and the evidence supportive of M.L. M.L. had not seen his son in 9 months since being charged because the complainant had not complied with the family court order.

We recommend that you keep in close touch with your instructing solicitors, to find out what orders have been made by the court about expert evidence.

He has mounted several challenges to that Order, to the Court's later Order that he be cross-examined on his asset disclosure, and to the Court's refusal to permit him to give evidence by videolink from Switzerland.

Once such evidence has been located and preserved by court order, the victim may, in appropriate circumstances, also be granted an order of the court to freeze such bank accounts (or other assets)(a Mareva injunction) until the final court determination of the victims claims.

Due to its intrusive nature, an Anton Pillar order is issued by Courts only where there is clear and convincing evidence that such an order is necessary.

(46) If otherwise admissible, the evidence given on an examination for discovery by a party... may be tendered in evidence at trial by any party adverse in interest, unless the court otherwise orders, but the evidence is admissible against the following persons only:

The issue to be decided by the Court was whether the question of what expert evidence the court should order should be decided by reference to the law of the forum or the applicableCourt was whether the question of what expert evidence the court should order should be decided by reference to the law of the forum or the applicablecourt should order should be decided by reference to the law of the forum or the applicable law.

9 - 7 (5) Unless the court otherwise orders, on a summary trial application, the applicant and each other party of record may tender evidence by any or all of the following:

Thus the Supreme Court held that the policy of «deport first; appeal later» is a violation of human rights as an appeal against a deportation order by reference to a claim in respect of private and family life under ECHR, art 8 should be effective, and this means there must be an opportunity for appellants to give live evidence to assist the tribunal.

It did not as the Tribunal pointed out, pay any sums, when, on its own evidence, it was able to, prior to the Awards and it offered nothing by way of payment until the English Court made its order enforcing the peremptory order of the Tribunal.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vernon Registry, demonstrating that orders allowing video - conference evidence at trial may become more common place given the New BC Supreme Court Rules focus on «proportionality».

The court then explains (more than once) that Bio-Rad filed the motion after the deadline set by the court for dispositive motions and ignored the court's order to «delineate with precision» on a «line - by - line» basis the evidence it sought to exclude.

However I note G.R.W., [2006] B.C.J. No. 3330: 78 Section 810 of the Criminal Codesays that: The provincial court judge before whom the parties appear may if satisfied by the evidence adduced, that the informant has reasonable grounds for the fear, order the defendant to enter into a recognizance.

14 Rule 13 - 3 (2) of the Supreme Court Family Rules provides that any party who wishes to present to the Court expert opinion evidence on a financial issue (defined in Rule 13 - 3 (1) as an issue arising out of a claim under Part 5 or Part 6 of the Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c 25), that evidence must be presented to the Court by means of a jointly appointed expert unless the Court otherwise orders or the parties otherwise agree and Rule 13 - 4 applies.

One of the enhanced powers under Rule 20.04 (2.2) is that the Court may order that oral evidence be presented by one of more parties, with or without time limits on its presentation, in order to weigh the evidence, evaluate credibility of a deponent or draw a reasonable inference from the evidence.

The Arizona Judicial Branch understands the importance of digital evidence; consequently, it has established the Task Force On Court Management of Digital Evidence by Administrative Order 2016 - 129 in order to develop policies for court management of digital eevidence; consequently, it has established the Task Force On Court Management of Digital Evidence by Administrative Order 2016 - 129 in order to develop policies for court management of digital evidCourt Management of Digital Evidence by Administrative Order 2016 - 129 in order to develop policies for court management of digital eEvidence by Administrative Order 2016 - 129 in order to develop policies for court management of digital evidOrder 2016 - 129 in order to develop policies for court management of digital evidorder to develop policies for court management of digital evidcourt management of digital evidenceevidence.

If no such law exists then the custody order granted by a Canadian court may provide strong and persuasive evidence for your case.

Some of my cases going to a judgment in the last few years were: Click to open judgment in fresh window (Scottish Courts site) Insurance implications of playing «Happy Birthday» on the piano Damages for psychiatric illness caused by bereavement Judicial approval of the Hohfeldian analysis of rights Leading case on fair rent assessment Title raiders and retrospective rectification Leading case on competency of hearsay evidence Detention ordered by children's hearing: Articles 5 and 6 of ECHR No damage suffered by making a smaller profit than expected «In a well - regulated legal universe black holes should not exist» How much is half a home worth, with or without a mortgage «Reasonably obtained» held not to include unethically obtained Leading case on children's hearing system and ECHR Attempt to judicially review SNP; petitioners held not to exist Unlawful for council to charge for property enquiries Fair sharing (100 % to nil) of matrimonial property

The Supreme Court noted this change in deciding Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, where it held that «[i] n order to obtain [a mixed motive instruction under Title VII], a plaintiff need only present sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence, that «[protected class] was a motivating factor for any employment practice.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to the foregoing enabling act and to the matters recited in the foregoing preface, that the annexed rules be and the same hereby are adopted for the regulation of original and appellate civil practice and procedure in judicial proceedings in the district courts of the State of Nevada, and the forms annexed thereto approved; that the same shall be effective on January 1, 1953; that publication thereof be made by the mailing of a printed copy by the clerk of this court to each member of the State Bar of Nevada according to the clerk's official list of membership of such Bar (which will include all district judges and district attorneys), and that the certificate of the clerk of this court as to such mailing, not less than sixty days prior to January 1, 1953, shall be conclusive evidence of the adoption and publication of said rules in accordance with the provisions of said enabling act.

It Is Hereby Ordered, pursuant to the provisions of NRS 2.120, that the annexed rules be and the same hereby are adopted for the government of the Supreme Court of Nevada and the legal profession in this state; that the same shall be effective on October 15, 1965; that publication thereof be made by the mailing of a printed copy by the clerk of this court to each member of the State Bar of Nevada according to the clerk's official list of membership of such Bar (which will include all district judges) and to each justice of the peace and to each police judge in this state, and that the certificate of the clerk of this court as to such mailing, not less than 30 days prior to October 15, 1965, shall be conclusive evidence of the adoption and publication of such rules in accordance with the provisions of NRS 2Court of Nevada and the legal profession in this state; that the same shall be effective on October 15, 1965; that publication thereof be made by the mailing of a printed copy by the clerk of this court to each member of the State Bar of Nevada according to the clerk's official list of membership of such Bar (which will include all district judges) and to each justice of the peace and to each police judge in this state, and that the certificate of the clerk of this court as to such mailing, not less than 30 days prior to October 15, 1965, shall be conclusive evidence of the adoption and publication of such rules in accordance with the provisions of NRS 2court to each member of the State Bar of Nevada according to the clerk's official list of membership of such Bar (which will include all district judges) and to each justice of the peace and to each police judge in this state, and that the certificate of the clerk of this court as to such mailing, not less than 30 days prior to October 15, 1965, shall be conclusive evidence of the adoption and publication of such rules in accordance with the provisions of NRS 2court as to such mailing, not less than 30 days prior to October 15, 1965, shall be conclusive evidence of the adoption and publication of such rules in accordance with the provisions of NRS 2.120.

As a result, the Ontario Court of Appeal ordered a new Hague Convention hearing be held, but one which allowed the girl full representation by the Office of the Children's Lawyer (or by her own lawyer if she chose), and which allowed to her to present evidence and receive copies of all evidence that had already been filed with the Hague Convention judge.

As noted by Mr. Justice Edwards in E.G. v. F.B.G., 2004 BCSC 564, courts must be cautious in replacing a workable custody arrangement contained in a separation agreement with a court - imposed custody order in the absence of evidence justifying judicial intervention.

87 Where an order is made by a judge of the Superior Court of Justice for the production by the Chief Electoral Officer of any document in his or her possession relating to an election, the production of it by him or her, in such manner as is directed by the order, is evidence that the document relates to the election, and any endorsement appearing on any envelope containing ballots so produced is evidence that the contents are what they are stated to be by the endorsement.

On the rare occasions that conduct is a relevant factor, the following approach may be adopted; Allegations of conduct should be included in Form E although the parties should be discouraged from raising allegations of conduct unless absolutely necessary; The district judge should clarify at the directions appointment whether conduct is being pursued and, if so, order particulars to be given of the precise allegations relied on and give directions as to the evidence to be adduced by each party; An alternative route may be to defer the filing and service of conduct statements until after the family dispute resolution hearing to allow potential settlement to be explored; It should be taken into account that conduct is one of the relevant considerations in determining whether proceedings should be transferred to the High Court, although conduct alone is unlikely to be sufficient to justify a transfer.

The routine use of hearsay evidence in applications for anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) has been addressed by the Divisional Court in R (on the application of Cleary) v Highbury Corner Magistrates» Court [2006] EWHC 1869 (Admin), [2007] 1 All ER 270.

(f) When the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that one of the parties has committed domestic violence, the court may order the party to submit to a domestic violence evaluation.

The court never hears from both parties at the same time, and will never know at the time of hearing whether conflicting evidence will be adduced by the other side until after the provisional order is made.