Sentences with phrase «federal court ruling regarding»

Not exact matches

In a recent court case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Department of Justice is prohibited from using federal funds to prosecute businesses who operate within state laws regarding medical marijcourt case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Department of Justice is prohibited from using federal funds to prosecute businesses who operate within state laws regarding medical marijCourt of Appeals ruled that the Department of Justice is prohibited from using federal funds to prosecute businesses who operate within state laws regarding medical marijuana.

Two Republican representatives in North Carolina filed a resolution Monday that would permit the state to declare Christianity its official religion and reject any federal laws or court rulings regarding how the state addresses the establishment of religion.

«I have no personal relationship with Kanu but I have been consistent in drawing attention of Nigerians to the trend of not regarding court orders and rulings by the present Federal Government.

A recent court ruling regarding Garden City, Long Island is a pivotal development in the long struggle to dismantle housing segregation as the federal government, courts and advocacy groups shift the battle beyond cities to white suburban enclaves that have deliberately erected barriers to integration.

If there wasn't enough going on regarding redistricting this week the whole sordid affair got a kick in the pants thanks to U.S. District Court Judge Gary Sharpe who has ruled that unless that state takes legislative action all of New York's future federal non-presidential primaries will be held on the fourth Tuesday of June.

The court expressed sympathy both for Ms. Couture and the teachers, but ruled that «The Fourth Amendment... does not empower federal courts to displace educational authorities regarding the formulation and enforcement of pedagogical norms....

In June, a federal court ruled that a single mother of four, whose wages were being garnished by the government over student loans she took out to attend a now - defunct college accused of fraud, was entitled to a speedy decision regarding whether her student loans were eligible to be forgiven.

To the fullest extent permitted by law, by your access to the Sites, you agree that: (i) any claim, dispute or cause of action regarding the Sites or these Terms shall be brought individually (NOT AS PART OF A CLASS ACTION) in the federal or state courts of the State of New York, and, such claim / dispute / cause of action will be resolved by a judge and THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL IS HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVED; (ii) you consent to the personal jurisdiction of such courts as the exclusive tribunal for adjudication of any such claim / dispute / cause of action, expressly waiving any right of forum non convenience, change of venue or like right; (iii) your recovery will be limited to actual out - of - pocket costs involved in specifically accessing the Sites (if any) and you expressly waive your right to all other forms of recovery, including by way of example only, punitive, consequential, indirect, incidental, special and exemplary damages as well as attorneys» fees for bringing such claim / dispute / cause of action; and (iv) the court shall apply the law of the State of New York in adjudicating any such claim / dispute / cause of action, except for the choice of law / conflict of law rules of the State of New York (or of any other jurisdiction which would result in the application of the law of any jurisdiction other than the State of New York).

In 2011's AEP vs. Connecticut, the Supreme Court ruled that individuals may not file nuisance lawsuits regarding carbon emissions under federal common law because carbon emissions are already regulated by the Clean Air Act.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2016 ruled on two cases similar to the Illinois suit, involving state - federal jurisdiction regarding power markets.

In the first federal court ruling (PDF) concerning attempts by city and state jurisdictions to regulate the use of drones, a judge denied a requirement by a city near Boston regarding local registration and significant bans on where and how low they can fly.

Genuine issues of fact precluded summary judgment on a consumer's claims against a seafood producer for allegedly making unlawful, false, and misleading advertising regarding the omega - 3 nutrient content of certain of its products in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), the federal district court in San Jose has ruled (Ogden v. Bumble Bee Food, LLC, January 2, 2014, Koh, L.).

A Federal court in California had recently ruled that all legal advice regarding the determination that the DACA was unconstitutional meant that all research related to this supposed conclusion must be disclosed.

On Aug. 19, Argentina filed petition for a writ of certiorari, urging the justices to settle what it described as a significant split among circuit courts regarding whether an arbitration tribunal's «manifest disregard of the law» provides a sufficient basis for federal courts to undo that tribunal's rulings.

To make a ruling on the case, the U.S. Federal Court needed to apply New Mexico state law regarding the necessity of an expert witness to show the causation of an injury.

That's one of the more important findings in last week's ruling in Apotex v. Allergan, wherein the Federal Court of Appeal heard arguments from Apotex regarding a settlement that the company says it never actually agreed to.

[3] On the basis of the applicant's cassation appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court by order dated 9.5.2012, No. 6 Ads 18/2012 -82, reversed in accordance with Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union concerning the interpretation of European Union law on the Court and presented him the following questions: 6 Ads 18/2012 First Excludes Council Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes nazaměstna not persons and their families moving within the Community (Regulation of the European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems), from its scope ratione personae citizen of the Czech Republic, which, in circumstances such as those in the present case, before 1 First 1993 subject to the laws governing pension defunct State (Czech and Slovak Federal Republic), Acting in accordance with these periods sčlánkem 20 of the Treaty concluded on the 29th 10th 1992 between the Czech and Slovak republikouo Social Security registered in Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 (Annex II of the European Parliament and Council Regulation No 883/2004) are regarded as periods Slovak Republic apodlevnitrostátního rules created by the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic at the same time as the time Czech Republic?

This aspect was not subsequently addressed in the High Court's ruling in the Wik case, and the first instance decision on mineral rights has since been judicially doubted because of subsequent High Court rulings about government «ownership» of resources: Justice North in the (minority of) the full Federal Court appeal decision in Ward - v - Western Australia observed of the Federal Court decision in Wik that «the conclusion that the mining legislation in Queensland conferred full beneficial ownership on the crown sufficient to extinguish native title can not be regarded as correct» (2000) 170 ALR 159 at para 843.

Creating a circuit split between federal appellate courts, the Second Circuit has ruled that courts are required to defer to United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's («HUD») interpretation of section 8 (b) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act («RESPA») regarding a lender's mark - up of a third party's fees when no additional...