Sentences with phrase «formed arguments in court»

The bias against pro se litigants is reinforced every time someone makes irrelevant and badly formed arguments in court.

Not exact matches

At Wednesday's oral arguments, the court's conservative majority appeared to have the votes to allow the public prayers to continue in some form, but both sides expressed concerns about the level of judicial and government oversight over prayers presented by members of a particular faith.

The reasons for accepting it do not form the kind of deductive proof we require in logic or pure mathematics, but they resemble the arguments used in a court of law to establish innocence or culpability.

But she's especially looking forward to a publication forthcoming later this year in the Yale Journal of Law & Feminism titled «Telling Stories in the Supreme Court: Voices Briefs and the Role of Democracy in Constitutional Deliberation,» which will analyze a new, controversial form of appellate narrative argument: briefs that share stories of individuals not parties to the case at hand.

The federal coal leasing program amounts to a major fossil fuel subsidy, favoring coal at the expense of cleaner forms of generating electricity.A recent federal court ruling rejected BLM's argument that increasing the supply of coal would not increase carbon pollution, in part because coal competes with cleaner methods of generating electricity.

While most of the curriculum at Harvard during this time consisted of lecture and student recitation, skills development was also provided in the form of weekly moot courts, during which students argued questions of law before professors and submitted occasional written disputations on legal subjects.121 Although Stearns had previously used moot courts in his teaching at Harvard, Story and Ashmun refined them.122 Cases were handed out the week before argument, and two counsel were assigned to each side.123 The cases would then be argued the next Friday, with the other students taking notes of the argument; the professor in charge that week would issue a written opinion.124

These were to address one or more of eight issues seen as important to courts: form - filling — making court documents more accessible to litigants in person; order drafting — creating orders that are more likely to be accepted by courts; continuous online hearing — challenging the question of whether a court is a place or a service; argument - building — to aid non-lawyers in creating well - structured arguments, distinguishing fact from law; outcome prediction — using technology to answer the natural question «what are my chances of winning?»

Two arguments are presented to distinguish the Investment Court System in CETA from the ISDS in Achmea: First, CETA contains a new modernized form of ISDS possibility, an Investment Court System, which meets higher rule of law standards, in particular by improving the internal coherence of investment law and the independence of arbitrators, as well as by reducing the private autonomy bias in the system.

On the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its form, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

Emphasising that this is a «very important constitutional case», in which there were «vital public interests at stake on each side of the argument», the court formed the «clear view» that it should not «do anything which would have the effect of immediately disapplying Part 4 of the 2016 Act», with the «resultant chaos and damage to the public interest which that would undoubtedly cause» (§ 46).

In the Court of Appeal, the arguments became wider than in the tribunal or EAT, because of the intervention of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, questioning the compatibility of the EAT decision with EC law and also focusing more clearly on the changes introduced in 2003 into the Equal Pay Act (s 2ZA) in the light of the ruling of the European Court of Justice in Preston v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust [2000] IRLR 506 to cover the case of several contracts forming part of a «stable employment relationship»In the Court of Appeal, the arguments became wider than in the tribunal or EAT, because of the intervention of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, questioning the compatibility of the EAT decision with EC law and also focusing more clearly on the changes introduced in 2003 into the Equal Pay Act (s 2ZA) in the light of the ruling of the European Court of Justice in Preston v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust [2000] IRLR 506 to cover the case of several contracts forming part of a «stable employment relationship»in the tribunal or EAT, because of the intervention of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, questioning the compatibility of the EAT decision with EC law and also focusing more clearly on the changes introduced in 2003 into the Equal Pay Act (s 2ZA) in the light of the ruling of the European Court of Justice in Preston v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust [2000] IRLR 506 to cover the case of several contracts forming part of a «stable employment relationship»in 2003 into the Equal Pay Act (s 2ZA) in the light of the ruling of the European Court of Justice in Preston v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust [2000] IRLR 506 to cover the case of several contracts forming part of a «stable employment relationship»in the light of the ruling of the European Court of Justice in Preston v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust [2000] IRLR 506 to cover the case of several contracts forming part of a «stable employment relationship»in Preston v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust [2000] IRLR 506 to cover the case of several contracts forming part of a «stable employment relationship».

The Advisory Panel whose report forms the basis for the statute said it would be too difficult in a motion — with argument based on paper records — for a court to estimate motive.

Two of the changes in the new BC Supreme Court Civil Rules are the requirement under Rule 8 - 1 (4) that pre-trial applications be brought using Form 32 and that parties are generally prohibited from providing the Court with written arguments during applications.

ARGUMENT: «Your lawyer, Paul Doroshenko, provided several court cases in which the court addresses the need for an officer to form a reasonable suspicion to make a demand.

Last month the BC Supreme Court released reasons indicating that parties ought to use Form 32 to provide the Court with «full disclosure of the argument to be made in chambers».

[30] Form 32 of the SCCR [Supreme Court Civil Rules] lends itself to providing both the opposing party and the court with full disclosure of the argument to be made in chamCourt Civil Rules] lends itself to providing both the opposing party and the court with full disclosure of the argument to be made in chamcourt with full disclosure of the argument to be made in chambers.

The options available to defendants to break up, remove, transfer, or dismiss some or all of these multi-plaintiff state court actions have grown, but the plaintiff lawyers keep coming up with arguments for why their cases should stay put in the form and forum of their choosing.

«This was the first time these two key legal arguments had been tested in court under the form of contract widely used in the industry», O'Brien added.

Even though the High Court had rejected, in the Native Title Act Case, the argument that because native title has different characteristics from other forms of title and derives from a different source, native title holders can be deprived of their property rights, this argument was recouched as part of an international law notion of substantive equality.

The court first considered the Owner's argument that the listing agreement extension in 2005 was invalid because the Broker had not provided the required agency disclosure forms with this revised listing agreement.