Sentences with phrase «exceptions apply to your case»

Not exact matches

(There are some other exceptions to this that are too technical to get into here and I doubt would apply to this case.)

The lead attorney representing the plaintiffs argued that this rule does not apply in this case because «the exception to this policy is where the officer personally committed a tort: a wrongful act or an infringement of a right (other than under contract) leading to civil legal liability.»

Your IRA custodian or plan administrator (the payor) will generally indicate that one of these exceptions applies to your distribution in Box 7 of your 1099 - R, but may not do so in all cases for reasons that include the following:

The trustee would need to write in and we would need to consider the circumstances of the individual case to determine whether the exception can be applied.

Individuals who live marginally beyond either requirement are asked not to apply, but to contact us to request a location exception, which are reviewed on a case - by - case basis.»

In this case I'm inclined to make an exception and say that if you are able to take advantage of these bonus categories, you should strongly consider applying for this card right now.

I will have a think about what exceptions are available to us, but, at this moment I am having difficulty making a case for any that would apply here.

The case involved whether a «ministerial exception» to sex discrimination laws applies to a chaplain suing for discrimination.

Areas of law: Insurance law; Subrogation; Income replacement plan; Statutory exceptions ~ The Insurance Act's provisions excluding subrogation in cases where the insured receives income continuation or replacement payments apply where the party paying the benefits is an insurer under an insurance contract, but do not extend to employers ~

None of the exceptions that follow s. 3 (1) would appear to apply to you and me, as we return from Québec with that bottle of apple ice wine or from Newfoundland with a bottle of Screech or a six of Hibernia Lager, let alone from B.C. with a case of luscious red.

The documents at issue were drawn up by the Legal Service not in connection with any pending cases and the Commission had only applied for leave to intervene, an application that was ultimately not granted because the cases were settled by way of orders, thus logically implying that if the court proceedings exception ever applied, it has by now ceased to do so.

And although references to the suggested exception appear in opinions in cases decided since the Watson rule has been held to be mandated by the First Amendment, [Footnote 6] no decision of this Court has given concrete content to or applied the «exception.»

The common theme to be found in the judgments of Stuart Isaacs QC (sitting as a deputy Chancery judge) and Master Bragge in those two cases was that confidentiality attaches to the mediation process only to the same extent as it does to without prejudice negotiations, so that the limits of (or as some would say exceptions to) the without prejudice principle apply with equal force to mediation.

Subject to certain exceptions which do not apply, there was immunity in this case because of State Immunity Act 1978, sub-s 13 (2)(a).

According to the Court, this is supported by an interpretation of the exceptions in light of Article 5 (5), which mandates that exceptions must only be applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject matter and which do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right older.

In those cases, the «time, place and manner» exception to laws limiting the freedom of speech would apply.

As such, the requirement in the MIG that an insured has the burden to lead «compelling evidence» that the MIG should not apply in his or her case was denounced as being contrary to the fundamental insurance law principle requiring an insurer to prove any exception to or limitation of coverage on the civil balance of probability.

The Law Commission proposes some kind of non-binding «guidance» about «needs» to assist decision - makers in their task of interpreting that term in specific cases, which serves to underscore the fact that there will be substantial uncertainty under its proposal as to what the exception will include and how it will be applied.

The proposed exception is so broad and its terms are so vague that no one will really know how it might be applied to the facts of any particular case.

(i) where there is a breach of a right afforded under EU law, article 47 of the Charter is engaged; (ii) the right to an effective remedy for breach of EU law rights provided for by article 47 embodies a general principle of EU law; (iii)(subject to exceptions which have no application in the present case) that general principle has horizontal effect; (iv) in so far as a provision of national law conflicts with the requirement for an effective remedy in article 47, the domestic courts can and must disapply the conflicting provision; and (v) the only exception to (iv) is that the court may be required to apply a conflicting domestic provision where the court would otherwise have to redesign the fabric of the legislative scheme.

Shorter marriages, gross disparity in contributions, long separations, cases where someone disposed of assets, cases where hidden assets are involved and cases where support can not alleviate financial hardship remain exceptions that may apply to enable unequal division.

However, many exceptions also apply, and each case has to be evaluated based on a number of factors.

These periods of limitations vary according to the type or kind of case involved, and there are many exceptions and special circumstances where modifications or extensions to these provisions might apply.

She argued there that not to allow her to rely upon the contents of the letter of 25 January 2007 amounted to a dishonest case or alternatively that the unambiguous impropriety exception should apply.

To my mind, there is no reason to apply this rule to all cases without exception, but courts seem to apply it pretty much across the boarTo my mind, there is no reason to apply this rule to all cases without exception, but courts seem to apply it pretty much across the boarto apply this rule to all cases without exception, but courts seem to apply it pretty much across the boarto all cases without exception, but courts seem to apply it pretty much across the boarto apply it pretty much across the board.

Citing Hoopes v. Carotta, [142 A.D. 2d 906, 909 - 10 (3rd Dept.), aff'd, 74 N.Y. 2d 716 (1989)-RSB-, the first case in New York to apply the «fiduciary exception» to the attorney - client privilege, Justice Schweitzer held that «Stock *** has a right to disclosure from his fiduciaries of communications that directly correlate to his claims of self - dealing and conflict of interest.»

Exceptions apply to breach of contract cases — even if as a result of the beach of some contract you are injured or become sick, damages relating to the breach are taxable.

But judges also have applied the exception to dismiss cases filed by the press secretary at a Roman Catholic church, a writer for The Christian Science Monitor, administrators at religious colleges, the disgruntled beneficiaries of a Lutheran pension fund, the overseer of the kosher kitchen at a Jewish nursing home and a co-founder of Focus on the Family, run by the conservative religious leader James C. Dobson.

The court referred to the 2007 Supreme Court of Canada decisions re Pecore v Pecore, and Madsen Estate, and stated that it now appears that a presumption of resulting trust applies in all cases of gratuitous transfers, with some very narrow exceptions, such as transfers between parents and minor children.

(7) Sections 46 to 48 apply to case management masters, with necessary modifications, in the same manner as to provincial judges, with the following exceptions:

The exceptions did not apply in every assault or sexual assault case, and lawyers often had to argue about whether or not an exception to the limitation period applied in a given case.

Although the Court of Appeals» ruling with respect to whether the pronounced results exception applies is not surprising, it is interesting that the court noted that even in cases in which it may apply, a plaintiff may not be relieved of the obligation to provide an expert affidavit with his or her complaint.

However, an acceptable proof must be offered to convince the judge that an exception might apply: California case law requires at least a preponderance of evidence.

Should the exception to the reinstatement obligation apply only in the clearest of cases or should an employer have the right to reorganize its workplace in the most efficient manner possible?

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.

That motion will be granted by the court — and you will automatically lose your case — unless a relevant exception applies to the statute of limitations.

The limits to such free speaking fall within the existing exception of unambiguous impropriety, which «applies only in the very clearest of cases».

The end result seems to be that in cases such as this the new contract / variation point continues to apply if it is (within s 2ZA) a «standard case», but that that is subject to the exception that the time limit will not start to run if the case comes within the stable employment relationship exception.

On the Limitations and exceptions to copyright [Wikipedia] page I read that in the case of educational content, limitations and exceptions to copyright may apply.

However, in Rafael Ruiz Bernáldez [1996] Case C - 129 / 94, the ECJ applied a construction that went beyond what one would expect of a literal interpretation: it ruled that the list of void exclusions (far from being a self - contained list of exceptions to a basic rule) merely served to illustrate the kind of exclusions that Art 3 (1) prevented.

In some cases, your car insurance may provide coverage if you cross state lines; however, you should be aware of any exceptions that may apply to the situation.

An exception to this criterion was applied to workplace health promotion interventions where controlled trials are rare; in this case other empirical study designs alongside an economic analysis were also eligible.