Sentences with phrase «gave the ruling argued»

Justice Anin Yeboah, who gave the ruling argued that the applicant had the right to do that because he personally came to court to get a judgment to have Mr. Woyome pay back the GHc51 million cash he received as judgment debt.

Not exact matches

Following the financial crisis, I argued that regulators should look into whether or not the mutual fund rules and current accounting rules were appropriately structured given the growing presence of firms like Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA), which get a pass from daily net asset value calculations and other requirements.

The «No» side, including the UK's ruling Conservative Party, argue that an independent Scotland would have to give up the pound and European Union membership, potentially catastrophic blows to the new country's economy.

As I argued in a recent speech, simple policy rules, including the most popular versions of the Taylor Rule, understate the degree of monetary support that may be required to achieve a given set of economic objectives in a post-financial crisis world.

However, Ginsburg gave some hope to CLS, which had argued that Hastings officials had selectively enforced its «all comers» policy, allowing organizations like the Latino group La Raza, but not CLS, to have rules restricting its membership.

My guess is that it will be a difficult case to argue against the impact of the contraceptive coverage rule as anything but an «incidental effect» given it targets a market and there's no evidence that the rule is over or under inclusively fashioned as a pretext to target the religious beliefs of those opposed to contraception.

The proposed rule is opposed by the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Pork Producers Council and the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association, which argue that the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 doesn't give the USDA the authority to prescribe practices to promote animal welfare.

He argues that if Balls is to vote for the fiscal rules set out in Osborne's new code on fiscal stability, the shadow chancellor will have to give details of the big tax increases he will have to impose to get the current account into balance.

Peter Kehoe, the Meyer campaign attorney, had argued the state party didn't follow its rules for giving notice of the meeting.

The Prime Minister argued that he is «the only party leader who is prepared to say to the people of England, «you should have... the same rights over legislation that are being given to Scotland and Wales»»; and it is true that this commitment was set out in the Party's 2010 manifesto, which promised to introduce «new rules so that legislation referring specifically to England, or to England and Wales» so that it «can not be enacted without the consent of MPs representing constituencies of those countries.»

Pataki argued that the state constitution and court rulings gave him the power to submit a budget that allocated revenue and set policy.

Yet, the country still lacks adequate rules to govern caretaker situations, which gives rise to considerable risks, argue Petra Schleiter and Valerie Belu

Similarly in the motion brought by former President Goodluck Jonathan praying Justice Abang to set aside the subpoena issued to him to appear in court to give evidence for Metuh, the Court in a brief ruling held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the motion argued by Chief Mike Ezekhome (SAN) for Jonathan on the ground that the former President has not been formally served with the subpoena.

As the editors write in this month's Scientific American, the ruling failed to define what «unreasonable» discrimination of Internet content is, leaving too much up for debate — «the only certainty it gives is of the tens of thousands of billable hours to be spent arguing over the meaning of «unreasonable» in federal court.»

Given how persuasively the case was argued, the shock is that the Supreme Court ruling only won by one vote.

As they get around to explaining just how horror turned into what it is today, Goddard and Whedon give the audience a chum bucket full of the thrills it wants, but also argues that playing by the rules is the wrong way to go.

He concludes with a discussion of California's Senate Bill 1458, arguing that the bill gives California the opportunity to create an accountability system which uses meaningful data to inform actions, provided it does not fall victim to the rules - based, one - size - fits - all nature of prior systems.

Third, though the Court already ruled against PETA on the issue once, the PETA employees once again argue that stealing and killing a dog is not outrageous conduct and should not give rise to punitive damages.

(As Cato and many others argued in last year's Supreme Court case of Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, controversial speech need not be true to be protected, and in practice an «only truth has rights» rule would give the state a stifling power to punish advocacy in debates that it considers settled.)

Especially given the case was argued before the appeals court on February 28 and 29, 2012 — over a year after the Timing Rule went into effect.

It could, as Michael A. Livermore has argued, work with states to create a cap - and - trade system for greenhouse gases, which would, in theory, give polluters more flexibility to cut their emissions (rather than having every facility have to conform to the same rigid set of rules).

However, Dr Sanchez - Graells argues that when the case reaches the Supreme Court on appeal «[e] ven if the parties do not challenge or even raise to the UKSC's consideration the matter of the (ir) reversibility of an Article 50 notification, it is a logical given that the UKSC needs to take a stance on this point in order to be able to rule on the case».

Despite arguing he had been set up by the supervisor after she had allegedly demanded that he give her a Valentine's Day gift, the court begged to differ and ruled against the employee.

He gave a bravura display of the forensic powers of a common law judge at the top of his game: the European Court, he argued, began a line of authority with a decision where it «gave no explanation»; had no requirement to say anything («it was not a rule that was relevant to the facts of the case»); and heard no argument.

While the ruling may have been an opportunity for the Court of Appeal for Ontario to explore this doctrine, this ground was not seriously argued on appeal given its exceptional nature.

In the case at hand, the AG argued that HSs are part of EU law and advised the Court to give a preliminary ruling.

The Defendants did not challenge his qualifications to give this evidence, however, at the conclusion of the expert's testimony the Defendants brought a motion to rule the testimony inadmissible arguing that the expert's «underlying methodology and science are so flawed that the evidence (does not meet the legal test for admissibility)» and that the expert was «biased and purposely misled the court to assist the plaintiff ``.

A ruling permitting cross-examination of Mallory about evidence he gave at his bail hearing... 171 Before this court, Mallory did not seek to revisit the ruling of the bail judge, but argued that the evidence from the bail hearing should have been excluded from the trial as a violation of s. 518 (1)(b).

It argues that the rule of law is being undermined by broadly drafted laws that, in practice, allow the regulators or prosecuting authorities to decide what is illegal, eg s 75 of the Banking Act 2009 gives the Treasury the power to disapply or modify the effect of any law without Parliamentary approval, and the financial services industry as a whole increasingly relies on «principles - based regulation».

Some comments argued, however, that the rules should give even more deference to state law, questioning in particular the definitions and the proposed addition to the «other purposes» criterion for exception determinations in this regard.

U.S. District Court Judge Donald C. Nugent has taken the jury's verdict under advisement and has given the CFPB until June 15 to submit a brief arguing why he should rule in its favor.

I simply wish to remind my fellow Canadian lawyers and Canadian judges that the American legal profession has succeeded in codifying many of our difficult common - law rules of evidence, to argue that the Uniform Rules are worthy of our closest scrutiny and, finally, to advocate that the Canadian legal profession give consideration to the preparation of a similar code of evidence for use in this courules of evidence, to argue that the Uniform Rules are worthy of our closest scrutiny and, finally, to advocate that the Canadian legal profession give consideration to the preparation of a similar code of evidence for use in this couRules are worthy of our closest scrutiny and, finally, to advocate that the Canadian legal profession give consideration to the preparation of a similar code of evidence for use in this country.

Given that, although the claimant had argued for a causal link between his sub-letting and his (mental) disability, the trial judge had ruled against any such connection, the claimant lost on this point too.

[the Yorta Yorta] approach to the recognition of native title was dependent upon the existence of an authentic form of aboriginal culture — an argument which can be seen to flow from the original Mabo ruling which argued that «native title has its origins in and is given its content by the traditional laws acknowledged by and the traditional customs observed by the indigenous inhabitants of a territory».

Professor Karen Czapanskiy argues that «predictable rule - based regimes» can ameliorate the impact of gender - based discrimination, but she cautions if we go too far toward standardization we may be unable to give sufficient weight to the «context in which particular parties operate.»

Wilson argued that this finding mandated a similar result by the court, as Illinois law gives rulings made in administrative hearings the same affect as rulings in judicial proceedings.