Sentences with phrase «federal court decisions holding»

The court cited federal court decisions holding that disabled employees can not establish that they can sufficiently perform the essential functions of a job without showing that they can maintain a regular and reliable level of attendance.

These critics might cite myriad federal court decisions holding that an expectation of mere «capital appreciation» on a secondary market is sufficient to satisfy the Howey test.

Not exact matches

Monday's ruling affirmed a lower federal court decision that also dismissed Kimzey's claim that Yelp should be held liable for distributing reviews to search engines.

The US Supreme Court's decision in Windsor v. US, in June 2013, holding that denial of federal tax benefits to same - sex widow Edith Windsor, which she would have received if her spouse had been male, was unconstitutional, has speeded up the process of legalising same - sex marriage in New Jersey, and may do so in other US states as well.

However, the travel ban, which is currently on hold because of a decision by the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, has other elected officials in the county, specifically Democrats, worried about Astorino's support for the ban and that it does in fact unfairly target Muslims.

Two lower federal courts held that the race - based decision violated federal employment - discrimination law.

This language was necessary because of the unfortunate United States Supreme Court decision in Grove City College v. Bell in 1984, which held that colleges that accepted students participating in the federal Pell Grant program were recipients of federal funds and therefore subject to federal oversight.

In a more recent decision, however, a Federal Court of Appeals refined that definition, holding that consent is only given if the consumer provided their cellphone number at the time of the credit application.

But it also smothers an ordinance already adopted in Tucson that had been placed on hold awaiting a federal appellate court decision on the rights of cities to enact such rules.

The game makers are wrong to argue that the Federal Circuit should rehear the case because the appellate court panel allegedly created a «safe harbor» for technological ideas, as the court simply followed precedent for abstract claims as set by Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that abstract ideas implemented using a computer are not eligible for a patent, asserted McRO Inc. in its bcourt panel allegedly created a «safe harbor» for technological ideas, as the court simply followed precedent for abstract claims as set by Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that abstract ideas implemented using a computer are not eligible for a patent, asserted McRO Inc. in its bcourt simply followed precedent for abstract claims as set by Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that abstract ideas implemented using a computer are not eligible for a patent, asserted McRO Inc. in its bCourt decision that held that abstract ideas implemented using a computer are not eligible for a patent, asserted McRO Inc. in its brief.

First the court had to determine that it could overrule its Aqua - Gem decision which it held it could based on Supreme Court's 2002 Houssen decision, confusion within the Federal Court on the application of the Aqua - Gem standard, persuasive decisions from the Ontario Superior Court adopting the Housen standard, and the evolution in the role of prothonotaries and masters within the ccourt had to determine that it could overrule its Aqua - Gem decision which it held it could based on Supreme Court's 2002 Houssen decision, confusion within the Federal Court on the application of the Aqua - Gem standard, persuasive decisions from the Ontario Superior Court adopting the Housen standard, and the evolution in the role of prothonotaries and masters within the cCourt's 2002 Houssen decision, confusion within the Federal Court on the application of the Aqua - Gem standard, persuasive decisions from the Ontario Superior Court adopting the Housen standard, and the evolution in the role of prothonotaries and masters within the cCourt on the application of the Aqua - Gem standard, persuasive decisions from the Ontario Superior Court adopting the Housen standard, and the evolution in the role of prothonotaries and masters within the cCourt adopting the Housen standard, and the evolution in the role of prothonotaries and masters within the courtcourt.

The Federal Court agreed, holding that the official had, by limiting his decision in advance and in a manner not consistent with the legislative purpose, unlawfully fettered the broad discretion granted to him under the statute.

Ian Gillis and his holding corporation appealed the Federal Court's decision to the Federal Court of Appeal.

In Danforth, a 7 - 2 majority held that states are free to make the benefits of Supreme Court decisions apply retroactively, even if the Supreme Court itself has ruled they are not retroactive under federal law.

Yesterday, the Law Memo blog posted a link to a 9th Circuit decision, Pollard v. GEO Group, holding — contrary to what other courts of appeals have ruled — that federal prison inmates may recover damages under the Bivens doctrine from employees of private corporations running those prisons pursuant to contracts with the Bureau of Prisons.

Facing the question whether the TTAB's earlier decision on the issue of likelihood of confusion should have been binding on the district court, the Supreme Court held that decisions by the TTAB may be binding on a federal district court considering the same or similar icourt, the Supreme Court held that decisions by the TTAB may be binding on a federal district court considering the same or similar iCourt held that decisions by the TTAB may be binding on a federal district court considering the same or similar icourt considering the same or similar issue.

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.»

The Court affirmed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that the USPTO acted within its authority in promulgating rules requiring the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to...

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».

Earlier this year, the Federal Court of Appeal, in Bristol - Myers Squibb Canada Co. v. Teva Canada Limited, 2017 FCA 76 at 65, directly addressed the impact of the 2008 Supreme Court decision in Sanofi on obviousness and held that:

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.

All About Information FC confirms ATIA institutions can make only one access decision On July 11th, the Federal Court held that an Access to Information Act institution's access decision was null and void because it had made a prior access decision in response to the same request.

The Supreme Court overturned the decision, holding that the provision relating to maternity benefits represents a valid exercise of the federal jurisdiction over unemployment insurance.

Seyfarth Synopsis: The U.S. Supreme Court's decline of a Seventh Circuit appellate decision solidifies that where an employee is medically unable to return to work within a very short time period following a leave of absence, the employer has no additional federal legal obligation to provide additional leave, or hold the employee's job open.

The Supreme Court of Canada has overturned a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal, which had held that the maternity and parental leave benefit provisions of the Employment Insurance Act were ultra vires (or beyond the jurisdiction of) the federal government.

Prior to the Federal Court's 2016 decision, parties had operated on the understanding that an already privileged document did not lose privilege protection by being shared, confidentially, with another party that held the same or similar interests.

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 courts.

The Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Iggillis Holdings Inc., et al. v. Minister of National Revenue is available here.

The district court denied the motion and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied mandamus, relying on its controlling decision in VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F. 2d 1574 court denied the motion and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied mandamus, relying on its controlling decision in VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F. 2d 1574 Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied mandamus, relying on its controlling decision in VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F. 2d 1574 (Fed.

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.

In a decision issued today, the Washington Court of Appeals has embraced the broad consensus among state and federal courts holding that plaintiffs who want courts to force service providers to provide identifying information about anonymous online speakers must both provide notice to the speakers and present evidence of wrongdoing....

In Canada (Attorney General) v. Hicks, 2015 FC 599 (CanLII) the Federal Court heard an appeal concerning the validity of a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal («CHRT») decision which held that the Human Resources and Skills Development Canada («HRSDC») discriminated against its employee on the basis of family status.

The Federal Circuit panel's recent open criticism of the redundancy practice may signal an attempt by the court to check the practice, despite cases holding that institution decisions are generally not subject to court review.

He held that the Federal Court's decision was contrary to the well - established principle that courts will not intervene and provide relief until after legislation is enacted:

Interestingly, when applied to federal law, California Courts have held just the opposite: that «unpublished federal decisions can be cited as persuasive but not precedential authority.»

The adjudicator's decision was overturned on appeal by the Federal Court, which held that an employer can dismiss an employee without cause so long as it gives notice or pay in lieu of notice in accordance with the Code.

At the end of the reply brief, it becomes clear that Samsung's short - term priority is the «quick links» patent, which the Federal Circuit patent held not to be infringed but the other circuit judges, in their controversial en banc decision, reinstated the district court ruling and jury verdict.

The Court affirmed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that the USPTO acted within its authority in promulgating rules requiring the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to construe patent claims in inter partes review proceedings under the «broadest reasonable interpretation» (or «BRI») standard.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding, in a 6 - 5 decision, that laches could still apply in a patent case, and that Petrella did not apply, because the patent damages statute was different from the copyright statue.

Today, a unanimous Supreme Court has reversed the Federal Circuit's decision and held that a generic manufacturer may invoke the counterclaim provision to force correction of a use code that inaccurately claims that a patent covers a particular method of using a drug.

Represented the United States Trade Representative (USTR) as respondent in a judicial review before the Federal Court of Appeal brought by the applicants to question the decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal in an antidumping and subsidy case where the tribunal held, in favour of the USTR, that there was no injury to the applicants.

The Barry's Ltd. decision was cited with approval by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Ward v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 1 SCR 569: «labour relations in the fisheries were held to be matters essentially falling within the provincial power to regulate business in the province and outside the federal fisheries power.»

The Court of Appeals then summarized decisions from the Second and Fifth Circuits addressing whether the New York Convention applied to the states as a treaty or as implementing federal lesiglation, and the Fourth Circuit saw a conflict in the holdings of the Second and Fifth Circuits.

In a key sentencing decision handed down this year, the United States Supreme Court held that the Ex Post Facto Clause is violated when a defendant is sentenced under provisions of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines promulgated after he committed the crime and those new provisions result in an increased risk of greater punishment.

The Georgia Supreme Court issued a major decision last week in Moreland v. Austin which effects Georgia car accident victims by holding that HIPAA, the Federal law protecting the privacy of your medical records, preempts the Georgia State law saying that your doctors can talk to the defense attorney without your knowledge.

In Dutch Industries, a 2003 decision of the Federal Court of Appeal held that a patent application on which «small entity» payments had been incorrectly made rather than large entities was deemed abandoned.

Of course, in the Martinez case, the Supreme Court held that states» decisions to relegate IAC claims to collateral review had important implications for the scope of procedural default doctrine in later federal habeas proceedings.

Dozier claims that an Idaho federal district court agrees with him in this recent decision which purports to hold that cease - and - desist letters are protected by copyright law.

Indeed, prior to the decision below, federal and state courts uniformly held (or assumed) that Apprendi applies to the imposition of criminal fines.

In Iggillis Holdings Inc. v. Canada (National Revenue), 2018 FCA 51 (CanLII), a highly anticipated decision released earlier this month, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned a Federal Court decision which found that common interest privilege «is not a legitimate or acceptable application of solicitor - client privilege».