Madam Justice Dardi preferred the Plaintiff's
evidence over the Defendant's finding the Defendant testified in «an evasive and less straightforward manner».
Not exact matches
Similarly, the CFTC has presented
evidence that
Defendants have profited
over $ 40 million from E-mini S&P trading during the Relevant Period.
The Enrollment Program also authorizes a superior court to have jurisdiction
over enrollees by allowing it to «appoint a receiver, monitor, conservator, or other designated fiduciary or officer of the court for a
defendant or the
defendant's assets,» as well as authorizes the Commissioner of Business Oversight to «include in civil actions claims for ancillary relief, including restitution and disgorgement, on behalf of a person injured, as well as attorney's fees and costs, and civil penalties of up to $ 25,000» for up to four years after the purported violation occurred and «refer
evidence regarding violations of the bill's provisions to the Attorney General, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the United States Department of the Treasury, or the district attorney of the county in which the violation occurred, who would be authorized, with or without this type of a reference, to institute appropriate proceedings.»
Sini, in the 19 - minute address, focused in particular on complying with what is known as the Brady rule, which generally requires prosecutors to turn
over evidence to
defendants that is favorable to them.
Cusum
evidence, which cast doubt
over the authenticity of the
defendant's confession, played a vital part in persuading the appeal judges that he had been wrongly convicted.
When a claim is served, it generally means sending certain legal documents and supporting
evidence over to the
Defendant — or asking the court to do this for you.
They weed out claims so old that
evidence may have disappeared and witnesses may be unavailable, and assist in eliminating the prospect of claims hanging
over the heads of potential
defendants and their insurers in perpetuity.
Prosecutors have an obligation to turn
over exculpatory
evidence that can prove the innocence of a
defendant; uphold the law and a duty to make ethical decisions free from self - interest, political gain, or environmental pressures.
(See Akazaki, «Peering
over the plaintiffs» and
defendants» parapets: Redesigning Ontario Rule 49 to Encourage Meaningful Offers of Settlement,» The Advocates» Quarterly: 30:285) A rule that guides the court's process must be characterized as procedural, compared to one that contemplates
evidence - based awards of compensation
The first is that, while the trial judge set out his findings of fact, those findings depend on him having preferred the
evidence of the plaintiffs» experts
over the
evidence of the
defendant's experts.
The parol
evidence rule forbids the
defendant from using the conversation
over the signing of the contract as a way to get out of the contract's clear requirements.
That failure, in these circumstances, undermines the
defendant's affidavit
evidence, calls into question the dominant purpose for the creation of Item 4.3, and is fatal to the
defendants» claim for litigation privilege
over Item 4.3.
Criminal and civil practitioners who rarely venture
over to the «other side» may forget or be unaware of the dramatic differences in a
defendant's ability to request and obtain
evidence when the
defendant is the subject of an indictment instead of a civil complaint.
This is where the decision is most open to challenge in the future as a
defendant may well be able to produce
evidence of air crash analysis which at least raises a question
over the issue.
«There is no question that the Court has required either a concern for officer safety or a concern
over the preservation of
evidence to support the constitutionality of a warrantless search of the area where the
defendant was arrested or a search of items near the
defendant,» Chief justice Lori Gildea wrote in today's opinion (pdf).
However, a bind -
over may provide
evidence of a
defendant's bad character pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s 98, even if it was not imposed as a sentence of the court, following conviction.
In Burdeau, the
defendant's papers had been stolen and turned
over to the government, which proposed to present them as
evidence to a grand jury.
The
defendants refused to pay the rents
over because the prior property manager, who had died, had been purportedly promised a portion of those rents by the plaintiffs,
evidenced by written acknowledgments.