Sentences with phrase «further judicial case»

direct the parties to attend a further judicial case conference at a specified date and time; and

Not exact matches

-- Miscarriage of justice is going on, and that's why neither Sebastian Thrun nor Gabriele Scheler have been arrested or imprisoned so far, while I as a victim am further victimized by their retaliatory fascism crimes; the case remain mystified and incomplete so far; and at this stage, the real problems are coming from the judicial system; Justice has not been done;

Since the case is going to the Appeal court for further judicial review, it is now time to allow the judges to perform their constitutional roles before we further engage in distractive media trial over a simple legal matter.

Australia About Blog This site is designed to provide resources relating to Australia's competition laws, including links to legislative history, key cases, information about relevant guidelines, expert and judicial profiles, a chronology of Australian competition law, key links to further resources and more.

This made the political circumstances surrounding the case far different from those of past judicial decisions.

Return the case to the Student Judicial Committee for a further hearing in keeping with the Appeal Board's instructions;

The Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, gave priority to criminal cases being tried within a reasonable timeline, resulting in criminal cases receiving the majority of judicial resources and civil cases being further delayed.

That the bill presents a case for judicial consideration arising under the laws of the United States and treaties made under their authority with the Cherokee Nation, and which laws and treaties have been, and are threatened to be still further, violated by the laws of the State of Georgia referred to in this opinion.

This is not the first case of this kind with a further crowdfunding judicial review in Hackney already proving to be successful in fighting a cut to the disability education budget.

Such cases might be one of the rare situations which merit a judicial award of lump sum alimony (assuming there's enough marital assets to award such alimony) but so far I've never seen a wife argue for such an award.

And further, that Marzetti, a case not cited in Bell (Re), is the guiding and binding judicial authority.

The key is ensuring judicial officers consider in criminal (i.e., child abuse) and custody cases the broad range impact abuse has on children to make more informed decisions on placement, parenting time, and to protect children from further mistreatment from an abusive parent.

Preparing for any class is a lot of work, but I find that preparing a new HBS case can be far more time - consuming than preparing to teach the typical judicial opinion.

Further, the draftsman clearly drew a very important difference between «an appeal... on any point of law» in s 204 (1) and «the principles that are applied by the court on an application for judicial review» in s 204A (4) by using those different terms for different classes of cases in HA 1996.

It is also a waste of time and judicial resources because a trial court could have dealt with the issue when it heard the case, causing further delay.

It seems likely, therefore, that the coming months will see debate as to whether the existing judicial toolkit is being used appropriately to facilitate the right behaviours and if there is a need for procedural reform to expand case management rules further to provide a broader menu of options to apply depending on the circumstances of the individual case.

These days the remedies for people who feel that the Home Office has misapplied the law or failed to properly assess their case are far more limited; basically a right to a second pair of Home Office eyes reviewing their application followed by an application for judicial review if their pockets are sufficiently deep to finance their own legal team and face the significant costs that may be sought by government lawyers if their claim fails.

Here I'm struck by the contrast between the accounts of the prevalence of «whacking» and the judicial response to it (e.g. that it is common and the courts / crowns rarely intervene) and accounts that I hear from practicing crowns (e.g. that it is uncommon and, when it occurs, the court's response vigorously and, further, that the court, crown and police are uncommonly solicitous to complainants in sexual assault cases — a claim that the Ghomeshi cases seems to confirm given the seemingly well - founded criticism of the police in that case for failing to adequately probe the complainant's allegations, meaning that inconsistencies in their statements were discovered on cross-examination by the defense, fatally undermining their credibility).

He noted that the Lord Chancellor had «lost six judicial review cases in 2014 and there are a further seven, strong cases in the pipe line», and asked whether this had any bearing on his current attack on judicial review.

Work v Gray provides little further guidance on how judicial discretion should be exercised when considering the issue of special contribution, beyond the principles which have already been set out in previous cases.

For further details and information regarding JCCs, please refer to the Supreme Court of British Columbia's Litigants» Guide to Judicial Case Conferences.

The definition enunciated in that case has generated much legal speculation, as well as further judicial interpretation by state and federal courts.

The Employment Judge conducting the assessment will take no further part in the conventional litigation although s / he may engage in judicial mediation on the same case if mediation is requested.

Even if one could say that such treatment reflects some policy of the various foreign states involved, or indeed of the United Kingdom, it goes far beyond any conduct previously recognised as requiring judicial abstention... The critical point in my view is the nature and seriousness of the misconduct alleged in both cases before the Supreme Court, at however high a level it may have been authorised... Sovereign states who without justification and without permitting access to justice detain or mistreat individuals in the course or in relation to their conduct of foreign relations or affairs have sovereign immunity in foreign domestic courts.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, No. 15 - 1406 (SCOTUS April 18, 2017), clarified the standard to be used by district judges in imposing «inherent power of the court to control judicial process» sanctions as far as setting an appropriate amount of sanctions, reversing a $ 2.7 million sanctions award in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Goodyear after a case was settled.

There may be exceptional cases in which it might be appropriate to apply for judicial review of the secretary of state's decision to recall the prisoner, but they would be few and far between.

While there was scope for «further use of mediation», this should be achieved through «active judicial case management», the CJC said.

The two female judges of the nine member court, Justice McLachlin (as she then was) and Justice L'Heureux - Dubé, concurred with Cory J. in the result, but would have gone even further in condoning the comments of the trial judge, asserting, «An understanding of the context or background essential to judging may be gained from testimony from expert witnesses in order to put the case in context...: A reasonable person far from being troubled by this process, would see it as an important aid to judicial impartiality.»

She notes that there is no convention preventing the enactment of legislation denying the federal courts, or specifically the Supreme Court, the jurisdiction over certain types of cases, although in her view «the protection for judicial independence would be far stronger if there were a convention leading officials not even to propose, much less seriously consider, jurisdiction - stripping bills».

Since the needed information is neither accessible to judicial notice nor within its proper scope, I believe we should seek further light by remanding the case to the courts of the State.

He has defended a Spanish company in two high - value arbitration cases for the acquisition of a Brazilian group of companies, winning damages over the sellers» contractual liability, who further sought vacatur of the awards in judicial proceedings in New York on the grounds of lack of impartiality of the President of the Arbitral Tribunal.

A pretty large volume of the entire U.S. Court of Appeals docket involves sentencing decisions where guilt is not disputed, and surely panel sentencing in cases with potentially long sentences would reduce that and might even be money saving for the federal judicial branch as a whole despite the extra effort invested at the trial court level, in addition to furthering justice by balancing out extreme stances.

The Supreme Judicial Court granted further appellate review, and, after reviewing the law in this area over the last century, the Court concluded that the distinction between natural and unnatural accumulations of snow and ice was a «relic of abandoned landlord - tenant law» which «has sown confusion and conflict in our case law.»

Further there was the general principle that judicial case management is designed to save expense and deal with matters in a way which is «proportionate to the financial position of the parties and allots an appropriate share of court's resources».

Legislatures exist to resolve systemic problems of inappropriate liability, and though that «mechanism» is far from guaranteed, it's clear from the English case and general experience that the judicial «mechanism» is no more reliable, indeed likely far less so.

Yet, with smaller populations, a lower volume of cases, and far fewer demands on judicial resources, the problem that Hryniak seeks to address isn't as fully relevant across the region.

Lord Rodger agrees with Bingham that «it is not open to this House in its judicial capacity to make such a far - reaching inroad into the common law rights of a defendant as would be involved in endorsing the procedure adopted in the present case» and that rather this task is for Parliament to address, as, «the proper body both to decide whether such a change is now required, and, if so, to devise an appropriate system which still ensures a fair trial».

The far from straightforward case - law on the distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property and its treatment in the judicial search for a fair outcome in the exercise conducted under s 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 is carefully and clearly analysed in Chapter 5.

Amicus further highlights that this case presents the narrowest and most troubling instance of such a Sixth Amendment problem — namely express judicial reliance on so - called «acquitted conduct» involving jury - rejected, judge - discovered offense facts to calculate an enhanced Guideline sentencing range and thereby justify an aggravated sentence.

Professor Rambo makes the case in the affirmative, arguing that judicial speech — even far off the bench — should be regulated via the Pickering test applicable to public employees.

Australia About Blog This site is designed to provide resources relating to Australia's competition laws, including links to legislative history, key cases, information about relevant guidelines, expert and judicial profiles, a chronology of Australian competition law, key links to further resources and more.

Australia About Blog This site is designed to provide resources relating to Australia's competition laws, including links to legislative history, key cases, information about relevant guidelines, expert and judicial profiles, a chronology of Australian competition law, key links to further resources and more.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the ruling of the trial court in the property line dispute, but reversed the ruling on the tortious interference with economic advantage allegations and sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the appellate court, reversing the judgment in favor of the Broker and Brokerage and sending the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

As far as Luzak's case was concerned, however, the court ruled that RECO had properly carried out its statutory powers of decision and dismissed Luzak's application for judicial review.