The first is the need
for judicial efficiency — courts should not be second - guessing the decisions of these administrators easily.
Not exact matches
They argue it will «promote
judicial efficiency» but indicate the government «has no plans to move to join these cases
for trial.»
Make sure you're not throwing away your claim or defense
for the sake of
judicial efficiency.
* Study and explore the possibility of the development of a
judicial protocol with the aim to: * Allow
for communication among judges in overlapping class actions proceedings * Coordinate and harmonize activities in proposed overlapping class proceedings in order to maximize
efficiency, reduce costs and avoid the duplication of effort; * Honour the independence and integrity of the superior courts while promoting inter-provincial cooperation and respect
for comity; * Implement a framework of general principles to address basic administrative issues arising out of national and multijurisdictional class actions; and * Provide
for nationally - accepted carriage motions.
The rationale
for judicial case management was a simple one: a shared need to provide better service at reduced cost to the public, by reducing delays and increasing the
efficiency of the justice system.
Guest columnist Anastasia Konina, writing recently in the online journal Jurist, says: «the proposed system of consumer rights enforcement has been heavily criticized
for a number of reasons, such as «putting
efficiency above
judicial scrutiny,» loss of public access, pressure due to general confidentiality of ADR and ODR proceedings and banning access to courts.»
Even though plaintiffs did not file an opposition to the request, the court found that defendant did not show that the Turkish proceedings would resolve the «key domain name ownership issue» or that waiting
for those proceedings to run their course would otherwise promote
judicial efficiency.
Unified Family Court increases
efficiency and is better
for families by eliminating duplicate hearings, decreasing the potential
for conflicting orders, creating opportunity
for alternative dispute resolution and promoting more informed
judicial decision making.
The American criminal justice system is far from being sufficiently enlightened, starting by too many presumed - innocent people caged without bond pending sentencing, moving to Virginia's crabbed criminal discovery system, continuing to Virginia's system that allows prosecutors to scare defendants to plead guilty by their refusal to waive a jury that in many instances and locations can mean more racist jurors than judges on top of the jurors often being more wild cards than judges
for sentencing, continuing to the many judges who choose
judicial efficiency over a fair trial, continuing to the brutal capital punishment system, cntinuing to excessive mandatory minimum and guideline sentencing, and continuing to the slew of innocent convicted people (many of whom plead gulilty rather than risking a worse fate), and continuing to frequently excessive sentences and excessive probation violation sentences.
An overarching purpose of the USAID Open Justice Project is to assist the Government of Moldova to improve the
efficiency and transparency of the Moldovan
judicial system and improve access to justice
for citizens of Moldova.
But ultimately none can escape market forces and the
judicial pressures
for increased
efficiency and cost certainty.
A recent Superior Court of Justice decision calling the traditional
judicial role as the passive receiver of evidence «antiquated» serves as a useful guide
for working toward
efficiency while still maintaining fairness, Toronto family lawyer Brian Ludmer tells Law Times.
A recent Superior Court of Justice decision calling the traditional
judicial role as the passive receiver of evidence «antiquated» serves as a useful guide
for working toward
efficiency while still maintaining fairness, Toronto family lawyer