Sentences with phrase «federal appeals court panel»

«Judges Press C.I.A. Lawyer Over Withheld Documents»: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, «A federal appeals court panel in Manhattan questioned a lawyer for the federal government yesterday as to whether the Central Intelligence Agency had a legitimate national security interest in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of documents authorizing it to detain and interrogate terrorism suspects overseas.»

Now a three - judge federal appeals court panel has ruled in favor of the scientists, who will finally be free to examine the remains thoroughly.

State Attorney General George Jepsen went to the Capitol to brief leaders of the majority Democrats and minority Republicans in the state House and Senate on the complex and unusually structured settlement that his office had negotiated with attorneys for the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition (SEBAC) after a federal appeals court panel said in 2013 that Rowland's action had been illegal.

Trump's sister will not be a part of a federal appeals court panel hearing arguments regarding the release of a list of unindicted co-conspirators in the 2013 George Washington Bridge lane - closing scandal.

Former state Senate Leader Dean Skelos and his son Adam saw their federal corruption convictions overturned by a federal appeals court panel Tuesday.

An attorney for Bayou Bridge Pipeline LLC told a federal appeals court panel in Houston Monday that it'll be providing «appropriate compensation» by re-establishing forested wetlands elsewhere in the swamp.

Not exact matches

A three - judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear arguments Monday from lawyers for Bayou Bridge Pipeline LLC, federal regulators and...

Jan. 17, 2014: First of 10 applications filed in Federal Court and the Federal Appeal Court by environmental and First Nations groups seeking judicial review of panel recommendation to approve project.

Former state Assemblyman William Boyland Jr. has asked a federal appeals panel to set him free because last year's Supreme Court decision narrowed the reach of federal anti-corruption laws in a case involving former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell.

A three - man panel of the Court of Appeal led by Justice Helen Ogunwumiju, unanimously agreed with the decision of Justice A.M. Liman of the Federal High Court in Enugu that there was no legal basis to grant the prayer sought by the former Chief Judge.

THE battle to determine the standard - bearer of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Bayelsa State, on Thursday, shifted to the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, as Governor Timipre Sylva told the five - man panel, headed by Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa, that the PDP had invoked its jurisdiction in order to stall hearing of the substantive matter at the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja.

The appeal court panel led by Yargata Nimpar overturned the ruling which was delivered by Okon Abang of the Federal High Court in court panel led by Yargata Nimpar overturned the ruling which was delivered by Okon Abang of the Federal High Court in Court in 2015.

A federal appeals panel has agreed to first let the former Assembly Speaker take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court before scheduling a retrial of his corruption case.

The unanimous judgment of a three - man panel of the appeal court also dismissed the suit which Melaye had filed before the Federal High Court in Abuja to challenge the validity of the recall procourt also dismissed the suit which Melaye had filed before the Federal High Court in Abuja to challenge the validity of the recall proCourt in Abuja to challenge the validity of the recall process.

A five - man panel of the apex court led by Justice Tanko Muhammad unanimously affirmed the February 20, 2015, judgment of the Court of Appeal in Lagos which had overturned the Federal High Court's decision striking out the chacourt led by Justice Tanko Muhammad unanimously affirmed the February 20, 2015, judgment of the Court of Appeal in Lagos which had overturned the Federal High Court's decision striking out the chaCourt of Appeal in Lagos which had overturned the Federal High Court's decision striking out the chaCourt's decision striking out the charges.

The Inspector - General of Police, Mr. Ibrahim Idris, has appealed against the judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja which declared as illegal the Special Joint Investigation Panel which he set up to investigate crimes committed during the National Assembly re-run held in Rivers State on December 10, 2016.

The Court of Appeal Panel led by Justice Ibrahim Salauwa, which was set up to determine the appeals filed by Makarfi and Jegede against the judgment given by Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, which INEC relied on to pick Mr. Jimoh Ibrahim, adjourned all proceedings indefinitely.

A panel of judges from the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to rule this week on whether a temporary halt placed on the order by a federal district judge should be kept in place.

In a unanimous opinion on April 5, a three - judge panel of the San Francisco - based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reinstated a jury award that a federal magistrate judge threw out in 2002.

A three - judge panel in the Court of Appeals overturned the federal district court decision earlier this mCourt of Appeals overturned the federal district court decision earlier this mcourt decision earlier this month.

On Tuesday, a three - judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, must consider the impact of greenhouse gas emissions that will result from construction of three new interstate pipelines in the Southeast.

The state of Texas today sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in a federal appeals court in Washington DC, claiming four new regulations imposed by the EPA are based on the «thoroughly discredited» findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and are «factually flawed,» 1200 WOAI news reports.

«That panel decision was subsequently affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which set aside an $ 86.5 million infringement verdict won by the company,» says the NLJ.

Our experienced appellate attorneys have represented clients in appeals filed in the Arizona Court of Appeals, the Arizona Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (for bankruptcy appeals), various state Courts of Appeals, including Georgia, Maryland, and Illinois; the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, United States Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. Supremeappeals filed in the Arizona Court of Appeals, the Arizona Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (for bankruptcy appeals), various state Courts of Appeals, including Georgia, Maryland, and Illinois; the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, United States Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. SupremeAppeals, the Arizona Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (for bankruptcy appeals), various state Courts of Appeals, including Georgia, Maryland, and Illinois; the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, United States Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. SupremeAppeals, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (for bankruptcy appeals), various state Courts of Appeals, including Georgia, Maryland, and Illinois; the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, United States Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. Supremeappeals), various state Courts of Appeals, including Georgia, Maryland, and Illinois; the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, United States Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. SupremeAppeals, including Georgia, Maryland, and Illinois; the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, United States Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. Supreme Court.

«The district court's frustration with what it perceived as an abuse of the federal court system and lack of candor with the court is understandable,» the appeals panel said on review.

We represents businesses before state and federal courts, juries and judges, arbitration panels and state and federal administrative agencies, and United States Courts of Appeals, state appellate courts and administrative appeals bcourts, juries and judges, arbitration panels and state and federal administrative agencies, and United States Courts of Appeals, state appellate courts and administrative appeals bCourts of Appeals, state appellate courts and administrative appeals Appeals, state appellate courts and administrative appeals bcourts and administrative appeals appeals boards.

• Latest decision adds to split between panels, creating uncertainty pending further action by Congress or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

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 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...

We regularly represent clients in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Boards of Contract Appeals, agency hearings, arbitration panels and various state or local tribunals in connection with claims and performance disputes, bid protests, SBA size and status protests and civil fraud under the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Act.

But the personality and character of a federal court of appeals inevitably derive over time from its active judges, who sit together year after year in randomly selected panels of three and who, sitting together en banc, are the only organ of the court authorized to overrule published panel decisions.

In a recent panel decision that deviates from the Federal Circuit's current tendency to defer to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's interpretation of the Leahy - Smith America Invents Act, the court vacated a final written decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

D.C. Circuit allows federal death row inmate to intervene in lawsuit challenging the federal government's method of carrying out lethal injections and its failure to disclose its execution procedures: You can access today's ruling of a unanimous three - judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.

Earlier this year, a 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals panel of three judges was unanimous in their refusal to have federal law apply to design defect allegations.

On Thursday night, DOJ, in a pending labor dispute in a federal appeals court in Philadelphia, offered a glimpse of legal arguments the government could make in asking the full D.C. Circuit to overturn the three - judge panel decision in Noel Canning v. NLRB.

Administrative law — Judicial review — Municipal law — Taxation — Real property tax — Payments made by Federal Crown in lieu of real property tax — Assessed value of Halifax Citadel — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister is unconstrained by the assessed value of the property determined by the assessment authority in determining the property value of a federal property for purposes of the PILT Act — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister acted reasonably in determining the property value of the Halifax Citadel lands (adopting the determination of the Dispute Advisory Panel appointed under the Act), and in particular in valuing the portion of the lands upon which are located improvements which are exempt from payments in lieu of taxes, representing 47 of 49 acres of the site, at $ 10 — Whether the Court should consider the present case as it raises similar issues as Montréal (City) v. Montréal Port Authority 2010 SCC 14, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 427, but from the perspective of assessed value — Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Federal Crown in lieu of real property tax — Assessed value of Halifax Citadel — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister is unconstrained by the assessed value of the property determined by the assessment authority in determining the property value of a federal property for purposes of the PILT Act — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister acted reasonably in determining the property value of the Halifax Citadel lands (adopting the determination of the Dispute Advisory Panel appointed under the Act), and in particular in valuing the portion of the lands upon which are located improvements which are exempt from payments in lieu of taxes, representing 47 of 49 acres of the site, at $ 10 — Whether the Court should consider the present case as it raises similar issues as Montréal (City) v. Montréal Port Authority 2010 SCC 14, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 427, but from the perspective of assessed value — Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister is unconstrained by the assessed value of the property determined by the assessment authority in determining the property value of a federal property for purposes of the PILT Act — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister acted reasonably in determining the property value of the Halifax Citadel lands (adopting the determination of the Dispute Advisory Panel appointed under the Act), and in particular in valuing the portion of the lands upon which are located improvements which are exempt from payments in lieu of taxes, representing 47 of 49 acres of the site, at $ 10 — Whether the Court should consider the present case as it raises similar issues as Montréal (City) v. Montréal Port Authority 2010 SCC 14, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 427, but from the perspective of assessed value — Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. federal property for purposes of the PILT Act — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister acted reasonably in determining the property value of the Halifax Citadel lands (adopting the determination of the Dispute Advisory Panel appointed under the Act), and in particular in valuing the portion of the lands upon which are located improvements which are exempt from payments in lieu of taxes, representing 47 of 49 acres of the site, at $ 10 — Whether the Court should consider the present case as it raises similar issues as Montréal (City) v. Montréal Port Authority 2010 SCC 14, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 427, but from the perspective of assessed value — Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister acted reasonably in determining the property value of the Halifax Citadel lands (adopting the determination of the Dispute Advisory Panel appointed under the Act), and in particular in valuing the portion of the lands upon which are located improvements which are exempt from payments in lieu of taxes, representing 47 of 49 acres of the site, at $ 10 — Whether the Court should consider the present case as it raises similar issues as Montréal (City) v. Montréal Port Authority 2010 SCC 14, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 427, but from the perspective of assessed value — Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. M - 13.

Until the recent Sixth Circuit decision, the most important invocation of Bush v. Gore by a federal appeals court probably came in a 2006 case decided by a different panel of the same court.

«[T] he weight of authority suggests that accurate news reporting — even when it is likely to have an adverse impact on the subjects of the report — usually does not give rise to an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress»: Yesterday, a unanimous three - judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a decision affirming a federal district court's dismissal of claims for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress asserted by two former undercover police officers against a television station in Albuquerque that had revealed their identities and their undercover status in the context of a televised report about their suspected involvement in an alleged incident of sexual assCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a decision affirming a federal district court's dismissal of claims for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress asserted by two former undercover police officers against a television station in Albuquerque that had revealed their identities and their undercover status in the context of a televised report about their suspected involvement in an alleged incident of sexual asscourt's dismissal of claims for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress asserted by two former undercover police officers against a television station in Albuquerque that had revealed their identities and their undercover status in the context of a televised report about their suspected involvement in an alleged incident of sexual assault.

In Rowe v. Gibson, a divided panel of the federal Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit dismissed the defendants» motion for summary judgment in their favour.

The Court of Review is an appellate court, and like other Article III appellate courts, it has the power to bind both lower courts (in this case, the FISC) and later Court of Review panels.22 The Court of Review probably has the same discretion as federal courts of appeals to designate opinions as precedential and non-precedential; at least, no statutory provision declares otherwise.23 The two public Court of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review is an appellate court, and like other Article III appellate courts, it has the power to bind both lower courts (in this case, the FISC) and later Court of Review panels.22 The Court of Review probably has the same discretion as federal courts of appeals to designate opinions as precedential and non-precedential; at least, no statutory provision declares otherwise.23 The two public Court of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedencourt, and like other Article III appellate courts, it has the power to bind both lower courts (in this case, the FISC) and later Court of Review panels.22 The Court of Review probably has the same discretion as federal courts of appeals to designate opinions as precedential and non-precedential; at least, no statutory provision declares otherwise.23 The two public Court of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review panels.22 The Court of Review probably has the same discretion as federal courts of appeals to designate opinions as precedential and non-precedential; at least, no statutory provision declares otherwise.23 The two public Court of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review probably has the same discretion as federal courts of appeals to designate opinions as precedential and non-precedential; at least, no statutory provision declares otherwise.23 The two public Court of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedfederal courts of appeals to designate opinions as precedential and non-precedential; at least, no statutory provision declares otherwise.23 The two public Court of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedFederal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedential.

In 2012 - 2014, we represented Heiltsuk First Nation before the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Joint Review Panel, and in 2015 - 2016, we represented Heiltsuk First Nation and Kitasoo / Xai» xais during a judicial review before the Federal Court of Appeal, and successfully challenged the decisions of the National Energy Board and government to allow the building of the pipeline.

Our D.C. - based Appellate, Constitutional & Administrative Law practice represents clients in appeals before the U.S. Supreme Court, federal and state appellate courts, government agencies, and national and international arbitration panels.

A pretty large volume of the entire U.S. Court of Appeals docket involves sentencing decisions where guilt is not disputed, and surely panel sentencing in cases with potentially long sentences would reduce that and might even be money saving for the federal judicial branch as a whole despite the extra effort invested at the trial court level, in addition to furthering justice by balancing out extreme staCourt of Appeals docket involves sentencing decisions where guilt is not disputed, and surely panel sentencing in cases with potentially long sentences would reduce that and might even be money saving for the federal judicial branch as a whole despite the extra effort invested at the trial court level, in addition to furthering justice by balancing out extreme stacourt level, in addition to furthering justice by balancing out extreme stances.