Sentences with phrase «federal court judges reviewing»

Five cities and counties in California that are suing fossil fuel companies for damages triggered by climate change are now at the center of a legal paradox created by conflicting decisions from two federal court judges reviewing nearly identical claims.

The Federal Court Judge reviews the information and determines whether, on the basis of the evidence, to uphold the Security Certificate.

Not exact matches

The Federal Court of Appeal's Hospira decision therefore raises questions about the role and jurisdiction of prothonotaries in the Federal Court as well as these appeal routes with the Federal Court as the court equalizes the standard of reviews between prothonotaries and juCourt of Appeal's Hospira decision therefore raises questions about the role and jurisdiction of prothonotaries in the Federal Court as well as these appeal routes with the Federal Court as the court equalizes the standard of reviews between prothonotaries and juCourt as well as these appeal routes with the Federal Court as the court equalizes the standard of reviews between prothonotaries and juCourt as the court equalizes the standard of reviews between prothonotaries and jucourt equalizes the standard of reviews between prothonotaries and judges.

760, 761 - 762, and in modern practice in the federal courts and every State, except Oregon, judges review the size of such awards.

In the federal courts and in every State, except Oregon, judges review the size of damages awards.

«Court Urges Review of New York Judge's Immigration Cases That Are on Appeal»: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, «In a move that immigration lawyers say is highly unusual, a federal appeals court has recommended that a Justice Department appeals board review all immigration cases still on appeal involving a judge who has been criticized as being hostile to people seeking asCourt Urges Review of New York Judge's Immigration Cases That Are on Appeal»: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, «In a move that immigration lawyers say is highly unusual, a federal appeals court has recommended that a Justice Department appeals board review all immigration cases still on appeal involving a judge who has been criticized as being hostile to people seeking aReview of New York Judge's Immigration Cases That Are on Appeal»: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, «In a move that immigration lawyers say is highly unusual, a federal appeals court has recommended that a Justice Department appeals board review all immigration cases still on appeal involving a judge who has been criticized as being hostile to people seeking asJudge's Immigration Cases That Are on Appeal»: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, «In a move that immigration lawyers say is highly unusual, a federal appeals court has recommended that a Justice Department appeals board review all immigration cases still on appeal involving a judge who has been criticized as being hostile to people seeking ascourt has recommended that a Justice Department appeals board review all immigration cases still on appeal involving a judge who has been criticized as being hostile to people seeking areview all immigration cases still on appeal involving a judge who has been criticized as being hostile to people seeking asjudge who has been criticized as being hostile to people seeking asylum.

Chief Judge Rader doesn't seem to always like the Supreme Court's patent - related decisions, but that philosophical disagreement may be part of the reason why the Supreme Court has to review Federal Circuit decisions so frequently.

Todd & Weld filed suit on behalf of Judge Kendall in federal court challenging the removal proceedings as unconstitutional on separation of powers grounds as an illegal encroachment by the legislative and executive branches of government on the inherent right of the judicial branch of government to monitor and review judicial conduct.

In its review, the CJC said the judges — Justice Denis Pelletier of the Federal Court of Appeal, and Chief Justice Eugene Rossiter and Justice R.S. Bocock of the Tax Court of Canada — had done nothing wrong.

The promise doctrine was developed through the Federal Courts» jurisprudence; under it, a judge reviewed a patent as a whole to identify any «promises» made in it, then assessed whether those promises had been met in order to satisfy the utility requirement of the patent under the Patent Act.

When the Supreme Court rendered the Federal Sentencing Guidelines nonbinding in United States v. Booker, it established appellate review of federal sentences for reasonableness to cabin sentencing judges» newly acquired discFederal Sentencing Guidelines nonbinding in United States v. Booker, it established appellate review of federal sentences for reasonableness to cabin sentencing judges» newly acquired discfederal sentences for reasonableness to cabin sentencing judges» newly acquired discretion.

In addition to his experience acting for and before administrative tribunals, Michael is a past law clerk to a Judge of the Federal Court of Appeal, and is the co-author of the legal reference text Standards of Review of Federal Administrative Tribunals, published by Butterworths.

So, West jumped on Lexis, and following something they did for almost 10 years after that, West of course sued Lexis in Minnesota, in the federal courts where they'd been cultivating judges for years, and where the cases would be reviewed in the Eighth Circuit where they'd been cultivating judges.

So, we will take this case to the 5th Circuit, to once again review the decisions of the all - white, all - male judges in Austin federal court.

Bashman also suggests that responsibility for ensuring jurisdiction lies with the federal district court and that judges should review the district court's opinions to determine whether jurisdiction has been properly established.

These include: United States v. Resendiz - Ponce, which presents the question whether the omission of an element from a federal indictment can constitute harmless error (9th Circuit says no); Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., on whether a provider of pay phone services can sue a long distance carrier for alleged violations of the Federal Communications Commission's regulations concerning compensation for coinless pay phone calls (9th Circuit says yes); Cunningham v. California, a sentencing case involving whether whether California's Determinate Sentencing Law violates the 6th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution by permitting California state court judges at sentencing to impose enhanced sentenced based on their determination of facts neither found by the jury nor admitted by the defendant; and Carey v. Musladin, reviewing the 9th Circuit's decision to overturn a murder conviction of a defendant who claimed he was denied a fair trial because the victim's relatives appeared in court wearing buttons with the deceased's picture ofederal indictment can constitute harmless error (9th Circuit says no); Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., on whether a provider of pay phone services can sue a long distance carrier for alleged violations of the Federal Communications Commission's regulations concerning compensation for coinless pay phone calls (9th Circuit says yes); Cunningham v. California, a sentencing case involving whether whether California's Determinate Sentencing Law violates the 6th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution by permitting California state court judges at sentencing to impose enhanced sentenced based on their determination of facts neither found by the jury nor admitted by the defendant; and Carey v. Musladin, reviewing the 9th Circuit's decision to overturn a murder conviction of a defendant who claimed he was denied a fair trial because the victim's relatives appeared in court wearing buttons with the deceased's picture oFederal Communications Commission's regulations concerning compensation for coinless pay phone calls (9th Circuit says yes); Cunningham v. California, a sentencing case involving whether whether California's Determinate Sentencing Law violates the 6th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution by permitting California state court judges at sentencing to impose enhanced sentenced based on their determination of facts neither found by the jury nor admitted by the defendant; and Carey v. Musladin, reviewing the 9th Circuit's decision to overturn a murder conviction of a defendant who claimed he was denied a fair trial because the victim's relatives appeared in court wearing buttons with the deceased's picture on them.

Responding to Judge Newman's dissent, Justice Breyer emphasized that AIA trials are very different from federal court proceedings considering patent validity, observing that in significant respects, «inter partes review is less like a judicial proceeding and more like a specialized agency proceeding.»

Federal Court judge under review for berating sex assault complainant.

Circuit Judge Reyna, writing for the majority, noted that a strong presumption exists that administrative actions are subject to federal court review under the Administrative Procedures Act.

The death sentence was upheld by Arizona state courts and a federal trial court, but when the case reached the U.S. Appellate Court for the Ninth Circuit, the judges sided with Hurles 2 to 1, remanding the case to a lower court to review Judge Hilliard's actions and determine if she presided over the case facourt, but when the case reached the U.S. Appellate Court for the Ninth Circuit, the judges sided with Hurles 2 to 1, remanding the case to a lower court to review Judge Hilliard's actions and determine if she presided over the case faCourt for the Ninth Circuit, the judges sided with Hurles 2 to 1, remanding the case to a lower court to review Judge Hilliard's actions and determine if she presided over the case facourt to review Judge Hilliard's actions and determine if she presided over the case fairly.

Just days after a federal judge in a multi-district litigation proceeding ordered a review by the court of any litigation funding agreements connected to the claim, three United States Senators have submitted a bill that seeks to mandate disclosure of third party funders and agreements in all commercial class actions and MDL claims....

If the Ministers agree that an individual is inadmissible, they sign a Security Certificate together, the individual is arrested, and the Ministers refer the certificate to the Federal Court where a judge reviews the evidence, and determines the «reasonableness» (i.e. whether to «uphold» or «vacate») of the Security Certificate.

We have forensically proven, and the court administration has basically admitted in writing, that during the original judicial review hearings in the Federal Court of Canada, employees and / or judges of the FCC conducted extensive private online investigations of me, my witnesses and my lacourt administration has basically admitted in writing, that during the original judicial review hearings in the Federal Court of Canada, employees and / or judges of the FCC conducted extensive private online investigations of me, my witnesses and my laCourt of Canada, employees and / or judges of the FCC conducted extensive private online investigations of me, my witnesses and my lawyer.

Since joining JAMS, Judge Roberts has been appointed as a discovery master by federal and state courts to supervise discovery and review privileged documents in complex commercial, patent, and product liability cases, as an election monitor for unions under court supervision, as a consultant to monitor a four - year consent decree in an EEOC pattern and practice case against a major restaurant chain, and as a trustee for a 36 - story commercial retail and office building on Fifth Avenue

Indeed, the greatest and most effective form of «patent reform» might simply be to knock these self - impressed patent litigators and Federal Circuit judges off their pedestals, recognize patent law as simply just another area of law in general, and present the issues to a jury without delay, followed by a review, if appropriate, in the appropriate Circuit Court of Appeals.

He is also the former Editor in Chief of the Federal Courts Law Review, the electronic law journal of the Federal Magistrate Judges Association.

Each of these four cases involved, first, a decision by a Superior Court Judge interpreting an insurance contract (or in Ross - Clair, a construction contract with the federal government), and then a decision of the Court of Appeal reviewing that lower court deciCourt Judge interpreting an insurance contract (or in Ross - Clair, a construction contract with the federal government), and then a decision of the Court of Appeal reviewing that lower court deciCourt of Appeal reviewing that lower court decicourt decision.

In this program, a panel of federal judges and practitioners will review the local rule, discuss reasons why you should volunteer to accept a pro bono appointment in Connecticut's US District Court, and offer practical advice for handling these cases.

He is the author of «The Burden of Discovering Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information» and «Electronic Discovery Primer for Judges,» both published in the Federal Courts Law Review, and has co-authored and edited numerous chapters and articles in other publications on e-discovery and information security law.

The CJC's new process is being used to consider the conduct of now Federal Court Trial Division Justice, and former Alberta Provincial Court Judge, Robin Camp, whose conduct of a sexual assault trial in 2014 led to a complaint being filed with the CJC by me, professor Jennifer Koshan (Calgary), professor Elaine Craig (Dalhousie), and professor Jocelyn Downie (Dalhousie) The CJC has struck a review panel to assess Justice Camp's conduct.

Constitutional expert Professor Peter W. Hogg, C.C., Q.C., has also reviewed Mr. Binnie's opinion and has said he is «in complete agreement with the Honourable Ian Binnie's conclusion that a person who has been a member of the Québec Bar for 10 years and is now sitting as a Federal Court judge is eligible to be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada from Québec.»

There are actually four levels of appeal: reconsideration, hearing by an administrative law judge, reviews by an appeals council, and Federal Court review.

On November 7, 2014, EFF filed an amicus brief on behalf of many computer scientists that asked the Supreme Court to grant Google's petition for review, reverse the Federal Circuit, and reinstate Judge Alsup's opinion.