Sentences with phrase «federal appeals court decision not»

Not exact matches

A group of 17 states plan to file a lawsuit in federal appeals court challenging the Trump administration's decision to declare vehicle emissions rules through 2025 «not appropriate.»

A federal appeals court signed off on the U.S. Interior Department's decision to take land into trust for a proposed Native American casino, rejecting arguments that the tribe's promises to mitigate environmental effects are «illusory» because as a sovereign Native American nation, it can not be sued to enforce them.

A federal appeals court decision allowing girls of any age to buy emergency contraception without a prescription won't immediately change access.

The Washington Post reported that the Justice Department requested on Monday that a federal appeals court continue to negotiate with Christian schools like East Texas Baptist University, Houston Baptist University, and Westminster Theological Seminary for another two months, rather than dropping their case and allowing the schools to continue to not offer contraception coverage per a lower court decision.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) said it will not appeal the Federal Court decision which dismissed its claim that Woolworths had engaged in unconscionable conduct through its «Mind the Gap» scheme.

The ACCC will not seek special leave to appeal against the Full Federal Court's decision in Metcash.

The ACCC has announced it will not appeal the Federal Court's decision in the Woolworths case, in which it had alleged Woolworths engaged in unconscionable conduct in relation to its «mind the gap» scheme.

The High Court had granted the Commonwealth of Australia special leave to appeal the decision in Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2015] FCAFC 59 (1 May 2015), in which the Full Federal Court concluded that they should not have any regard to the figures agreed by the parties in relation to penalties.

Interestingly enough, because in the US you have the right to appeal to a higher court if you don't like the decision of a lower court, many times states will find very popular gun control bills struck down by a Federal court who tells them that in the pure legal sense, their gun control laws are unconstitutional.

ALBANY — A federal appeals court on Tuesday backed a lower court's decision not to halt last year's County Legislature elections based on a lawsuit alleging voting rights violations in the county's redistricting plan.

In a decision released Tuesday, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that competitive cheerleading does not yet meet the standards of a varsity sport under Title IX, the 1972 federal law that mandates equal opportunities for men and women in education and athletics.

WAMC's Dr. Alan Chartok discusses the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the Trump Administration's appeal of a Federal Judge's ruling on DACA and the political clout of labor unions being challenged in the Mark Janus Supreme Court case that began Monday.

If the Supreme Court wasn't functional for an extended period then various different and contradictory decisions made by the appeals courts would build up and there would be different «laws of the land» in each federal judicial district.

Federal prosecutors won't oppose letting ex-Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno remain free while he appeals his conviction in the wake of the US Supreme Court's «honest services» statute decision.

If they don't have a quorum, then you get exactly the same outcome as if instead of rejecting most petitions for cases to be heard by them, they just reject them all: the federal appeals court's decisions stand.

The parents of a child with severe physical and mental handicaps have appealed a federal - court decision that is believed to be the first to declare a child ineligible to receive special - education services because he is not «capable of benefiting» from them.

It is important to note that the decision in a federal court of appeals is not binding on the cases that are outside of its circuit — there are 13 different federal court of appeals circuits.

For example, the federal appeals court in Chicago (7th Circuit) will still make its own determination on the appeals for the Cook County and Chicago ordinances and will not be required to follow the decisions on appeal in Phoenix and New York because they are in a different circuit.

The plaintiffs chose not to appeal that decision, but insisted on continuing to litigate the same patent and many of the exact same issues before the California federal court.

«We are happy this lawsuit is moving forward with an appeal,» says Eric Steenstra, President of Vote Hemp, a non-profit organization working to bring industrial hemp farming back to the U.S. «We feel that the lower court's decision not only overlooks Congress's original legislative intent, but also fails to stand up for fundamental states» rights against overreaching federal regulation.

As the federal government moves to limit judicial discretion in the sentencing of violent crimes, a recent decision from the British Columbia Court of Appeal has reasserted the court's authority, ruling that jurors in murder trials need not be unanimous in their sentencing recommendation to the cCourt of Appeal has reasserted the court's authority, ruling that jurors in murder trials need not be unanimous in their sentencing recommendation to the ccourt's authority, ruling that jurors in murder trials need not be unanimous in their sentencing recommendation to the courtcourt.

In its decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal noted the trial judge «made many errors» stating the original interpretation did not take into consideration that a two - step process involving consultation by both the province and the federal government is unnecessary, as the treaty right is protected.

A recent decision of the Federal Court in Novartis v Teva 2013 FC 283 («Novartis»)[under appeal A-123-13] has established that the relevant date for patent sufficiency is not until the publication date.

A federal appeals court vacated the conviction last year, however, because jury instructions didn't reflect a later U.S. Supreme Court decision narrowing the meaning of official acts that can support a federal bribery conviccourt vacated the conviction last year, however, because jury instructions didn't reflect a later U.S. Supreme Court decision narrowing the meaning of official acts that can support a federal bribery convicCourt decision narrowing the meaning of official acts that can support a federal bribery conviction.

He obviously can't hear an appeal of his own district court decision, but that one has been appealed to the Federal Circuit anyway.

The decision of the Federal Court of Appeal was not released until April 13, 1983 some two weeks after assent had been given to the amendments to the Act.

The court then expressed general agreement with the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in the RCMP Complaints Commission case, although it broadened that court's characterization of the third category to include not just disqualification cases, but also, for example, cases where a regulator wished to impose conditions such as supervision or special reporting obligations on a registcourt then expressed general agreement with the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in the RCMP Complaints Commission case, although it broadened that court's characterization of the third category to include not just disqualification cases, but also, for example, cases where a regulator wished to impose conditions such as supervision or special reporting obligations on a registCourt of Appeal's decision in the RCMP Complaints Commission case, although it broadened that court's characterization of the third category to include not just disqualification cases, but also, for example, cases where a regulator wished to impose conditions such as supervision or special reporting obligations on a registcourt's characterization of the third category to include not just disqualification cases, but also, for example, cases where a regulator wished to impose conditions such as supervision or special reporting obligations on a registrant.

Following that decision, the attorney general appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal, which ruled that the tribunal did not have the authority to make a costs award under the Canadian Human Rights Act and quashed the tribunal's decision.

It also noted the attorney, in a rebuttal, cited «a [then] recent federal appeals court decision holding that law firm ads showing space aliens and lawyers running at breakneck speeds did not violate ethics rules.»

Meanwhile, a decision yesterday from a three - judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Cook v. Gates, is drawing interest for its dismissal of a constitutional challenge to the federal government's controversial «Don't Ask, Don't Tell,» policy on gays in the military.

In an en banc decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the appeals court may review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's determination, in connection with a decision to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314, that a petition is not time - barred undCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the appeals court may review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's determination, in connection with a decision to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314, that a petition is not time - barred uAppeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the appeals court may review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's determination, in connection with a decision to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314, that a petition is not time - barred uappeals court may review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's determination, in connection with a decision to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314, that a petition is not time - barred undcourt may review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's determination, in connection with a decision to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314, that a petition is not time - barred under...

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled today in a split decision that the Patent and Trademark Office did not overstep its authority in adopting a set of new rules that some intellectual property lawyers say fundamentally alter patent practice and threaten innovation.

In a recent decision, a three - judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) acted properly in issuing a final decision as to some — but not all — claims challenged in...

The Court of Appeal in Trudel, following the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Schreiber v. Federal Republic of Germany (2001), 52 O.R. (3d) 577, held that a motion to dismiss based on state immunity need not meet the «plain and obvious standard».

The nation's only court that operates in secrecy, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, may not have a Web site of its own, like other federal appeals courts, but its decision this week affirming the government's broad power to investigate suspected spies and terrorists made it onto thecourt that operates in secrecy, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, may not have a Web site of its own, like other federal appeals courts, but its decision this week affirming the government's broad power to investigate suspected spies and terrorists made it onto theCourt of Review, may not have a Web site of its own, like other federal appeals courts, but its decision this week affirming the government's broad power to investigate suspected spies and terrorists made it onto the Web.

The Federal Court of Appeal recognized this power in 1989 in its decision in Kahlon v. MEI [1989] FCJ no. 104, when, citing from Justice Thurlow in an earlier decision, it held that the issue was not whether the decision made by a visa officer that an applicant was in a prohibited class (inadmissible) was correct but whether the person was in fact one of the prohibited class.

He explains, «I have suggested that weighting the number of decisions of a federal court of appeals by the number of citations to those decisions by other courts of appeals, which is to say courts not bound as a matter of stare decisis to follow the cited court's decisions, yields a meaningful measure of judicial output.»

The right to breastfeed in public has made headlines of late, but the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Flatt v. Attorney General of Canada, 2015 FCA 250 makes it clear that choosing to breastfeed in most instances is just that — a choice, and not one that will necessarily be protected by human rights legislation in the context of work obligations.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that it was not appropriate for the Federal Court judge to rely on the decision of the New York Court of Appeals to effectively overturn relevant decisions of the Alberta and British Columbia cAppeal allowed the appeal, holding that it was not appropriate for the Federal Court judge to rely on the decision of the New York Court of Appeals to effectively overturn relevant decisions of the Alberta and British Columbia cappeal, holding that it was not appropriate for the Federal Court judge to rely on the decision of the New York Court of Appeals to effectively overturn relevant decisions of the Alberta and British Columbia courts.

One federal appeals court has held that decisions of the courts of foreign nations under the Convention are not entitled to full faith and credit; however, they are entitled to deference under principles of international comity.

But here there is a split among federal courts of appeals on an important constitutional question — the D.C. Circuit and the Fifth Circuit take the individual rights view (see here and here for why the Fifth Circuit's decision can't be dismissed as dictum), while I think nine other circuits take the collective rights view.

A notice of appeal has been filed with the Federal Court of Appeal, so the Tax Court's decision may not be the final word on thisappeal has been filed with the Federal Court of Appeal, so the Tax Court's decision may not be the final word on thisAppeal, so the Tax Court's decision may not be the final word on this case.

Although Johnstone was certainly authoritative, the Tribunal took care to note that it was not bound by the decision as it emanated from the Federal Court of Appeal before setting out what it considers to be the correct test for family status discrimination.

This decision was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal who ruled that the Code did not prohibit federally regulated employers from dismissing their employees without cause.

And for any readers who simply can't get enough when it comes to appeals involving the law school subjects of federal courts and civil procedure, today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision resolving «whether the federal court in Guam has jurisdiction in disputes exclusively between aliens.appeals involving the law school subjects of federal courts and civil procedure, today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision resolving «whether the federal court in Guam has jurisdiction in disputes exclusively between aliens.&rCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision resolving «whether the federal court in Guam has jurisdiction in disputes exclusively between aliens.Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision resolving «whether the federal court in Guam has jurisdiction in disputes exclusively between aliens.&rcourt in Guam has jurisdiction in disputes exclusively between aliens.»

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a decision by the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidating two patents after an inter partes review proceeding, even though the decision partially rested on references and evidence not disclosed in the challenger's petition for review or the PTAB's decision to institute.

In the Federal Court, this argument did not prevail, but the decision has been appealed.

The German Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof) reversed the contested decision of the appeal court, because the latter decided that the acts of the respondent (namely the setting of a link which led to the access of an internetsite which was illegal) are not justified on the basis of freedom of expression and freedom of press reporCourt (Bundesgerichtshof) reversed the contested decision of the appeal court, because the latter decided that the acts of the respondent (namely the setting of a link which led to the access of an internetsite which was illegal) are not justified on the basis of freedom of expression and freedom of press reporcourt, because the latter decided that the acts of the respondent (namely the setting of a link which led to the access of an internetsite which was illegal) are not justified on the basis of freedom of expression and freedom of press reporting.

The Federal Court of Appeal's decision Friday not to hear an appeal by the government of British Columbia and several B.C. municipalities opposed to a ruling of the National Energy Board that allows Kinder Morgan Canada to ignore local permits and bylaws undoubtedly illustrates the strength of Alberta's legal arguAppeal's decision Friday not to hear an appeal by the government of British Columbia and several B.C. municipalities opposed to a ruling of the National Energy Board that allows Kinder Morgan Canada to ignore local permits and bylaws undoubtedly illustrates the strength of Alberta's legal arguappeal by the government of British Columbia and several B.C. municipalities opposed to a ruling of the National Energy Board that allows Kinder Morgan Canada to ignore local permits and bylaws undoubtedly illustrates the strength of Alberta's legal arguments.

Thus, not only is a federal court sitting in diversity and applying D.C. law not bound by the Rules of Decision Act to follow the decisions of the D.C. Court of Appeals; there actually is something that seems untoward about an Article III court being bound by a non-Article III court's interpretation of federal law — even where that federal law is only of local applicabicourt sitting in diversity and applying D.C. law not bound by the Rules of Decision Act to follow the decisions of the D.C. Court of Appeals; there actually is something that seems untoward about an Article III court being bound by a non-Article III court's interpretation of federal law — even where that federal law is only of local applicabiCourt of Appeals; there actually is something that seems untoward about an Article III court being bound by a non-Article III court's interpretation of federal law — even where that federal law is only of local applicabicourt being bound by a non-Article III court's interpretation of federal law — even where that federal law is only of local applicabicourt's interpretation of federal law — even where that federal law is only of local applicability.