Sentences with phrase «fresh appeal in the case»

Not exact matches

Making a Murderer is one of multiple examples of a true crime narrative so evocative that it revived momentum in a once dormant case, as Avery recently hired a new lawyer in the hope of mounting a fresh appeal of his 2007 conviction.

Kareem argued that, going by numerous judicial authorities, some of which he cited on Wednesday, the development implied that Justice Tsoho's court had been robbed of jurisdiction to continue to conduct proceedings in the case until the Court of Appeal determined the fresh motion for stay before it.

Further, by being late in reporting the matter to your malpractice insurer, you are not only jeopardizing your coverage but also endangering hopes of an appeal because this is likely not a case where you can introduce fresh evidence on appeal.

In their critical assessments of the CCRC, Robert Schehr and Lynne Weathered identify the following key characteristics that generate serious impediments to the CCRC's ability to perform its oversight role: (1) the subordinate structural relationship of the CCRC to the Court of Appeal, (2) no objective determination of what constitutes a thorough investigation, (3) the role of caseworkers in screening viable cases of review, (4) the limited amount of time for case review, (5) limited resources to fully investigate cases and over-reliance on petitioners to generate grounds for appeal, and (6) limitations on case investigation to meet fresh evidence standardIn their critical assessments of the CCRC, Robert Schehr and Lynne Weathered identify the following key characteristics that generate serious impediments to the CCRC's ability to perform its oversight role: (1) the subordinate structural relationship of the CCRC to the Court of Appeal, (2) no objective determination of what constitutes a thorough investigation, (3) the role of caseworkers in screening viable cases of review, (4) the limited amount of time for case review, (5) limited resources to fully investigate cases and over-reliance on petitioners to generate grounds for appeal, and (6) limitations on case investigation to meet fresh evidence stanAppeal, (2) no objective determination of what constitutes a thorough investigation, (3) the role of caseworkers in screening viable cases of review, (4) the limited amount of time for case review, (5) limited resources to fully investigate cases and over-reliance on petitioners to generate grounds for appeal, and (6) limitations on case investigation to meet fresh evidence standardin screening viable cases of review, (4) the limited amount of time for case review, (5) limited resources to fully investigate cases and over-reliance on petitioners to generate grounds for appeal, and (6) limitations on case investigation to meet fresh evidence stanappeal, and (6) limitations on case investigation to meet fresh evidence standards.

In some cases, negotiating with the Home Office or making a fresh application is the fastest resolution while others require more extreme measures, such as challenging a Home Office decision in an appeal or by Judicial RevieIn some cases, negotiating with the Home Office or making a fresh application is the fastest resolution while others require more extreme measures, such as challenging a Home Office decision in an appeal or by Judicial Reviein an appeal or by Judicial Review.

In the present case, the Court of Appeal determined the fresh evidence in question «sheds no light» on the pivotal issue in the case which was whether the Respondent knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct he knew would likely injure the AppellantIn the present case, the Court of Appeal determined the fresh evidence in question «sheds no light» on the pivotal issue in the case which was whether the Respondent knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct he knew would likely injure the Appellantin question «sheds no light» on the pivotal issue in the case which was whether the Respondent knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct he knew would likely injure the Appellantin the case which was whether the Respondent knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct he knew would likely injure the Appellantin unlawful conduct he knew would likely injure the Appellants.

In our experience, even with cases handled internally by our firm, there is no substitute for a fresh pair of eyes in determining whether to appeal and which issues have the greatest chance of success on appeaIn our experience, even with cases handled internally by our firm, there is no substitute for a fresh pair of eyes in determining whether to appeal and which issues have the greatest chance of success on appeain determining whether to appeal and which issues have the greatest chance of success on appeal.

However, what is clear (and what the Court of Appeal once again highlighted in this case), is that a promise to perform an existing contract is not fresh consideration.

However, Lord Phillips clearly had in mind that the test under para 353 is now effectively the same as that in certification cases, ie that «[i] f on at least one legitimate view of the facts or the law the claim may succeed», the applicant must be treated as making a fresh claim and thus as entitled to appeal.

This week the Ontario Court of Appeal released the decision in Taylor v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 ONCA 479, in a special case motion assessing the sufficiency of fresh pleadings.

He reviewed the authorities on delay, held that the delay in this case was insufficiently extreme — partly on the basis of fresh evidence which excused some of the delay — and allowed the secretary of state's appeal.

The Court noted that its decision in that case was a short, five - paragraph endorsement disposing of an application to admit fresh evidence on appeal.