Sentences with phrase «general jurisdiction state»

Not exact matches

The Enrollment Program also authorizes a superior court to have jurisdiction over enrollees by allowing it to «appoint a receiver, monitor, conservator, or other designated fiduciary or officer of the court for a defendant or the defendant's assets,» as well as authorizes the Commissioner of Business Oversight to «include in civil actions claims for ancillary relief, including restitution and disgorgement, on behalf of a person injured, as well as attorney's fees and costs, and civil penalties of up to $ 25,000» for up to four years after the purported violation occurred and «refer evidence regarding violations of the bill's provisions to the Attorney General, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the United States Department of the Treasury, or the district attorney of the county in which the violation occurred, who would be authorized, with or without this type of a reference, to institute appropriate proceedings.»

General If any of these terms and conditions should be determined to be illegal, invalid or otherwise unenforceable by reason of the laws of any state or country in which these terms and conditions are intended to be effective, then to the extent and within the jurisdiction which that Term or Condition is illegal, invalid or unenforceable, it shall be severed and deleted from this clause and the remaining terms and conditions shall survive, remain in full force and effect and continue to be binding and enforceable.

Section (d) of the authorization document states that Mueller has to discuss any crime that doesn't fall within his «Jurisdiction» as layed out by the Attorney General with the AG, who can then determine if it should be added to the Jurisdiction, or given to an authority that can prosecute it.

«Strikingly, these successes have come even though the Office of the Attorney General has long requested — and long been denied — original criminal jurisdiction to prosecute public corruption cases without first obtaining a specific referral from the Governor, Comptroller, or another State agency,» he wrote.

In general, a federation of republican states would outlaw secrecy jurisdictions (and seek to support small island economies that have become dependent on this practice in other ways) but, in the first instance, there are three more immediate steps that can be taken.

(The attorney general does not have general criminal jurisdiction and has limited power to investigate state government, with such powers granted to the elected district attorney in each county.)

In the last year, Uruguay became the first national jurisdiction in the world to legalise cannabis; the world's first legal, recreational cannabis market opened in Colorado; Colombia and Guatemala took a daring stand at the UN general assembly, telling assembled delegates that the war on drugs had failed; and the Organisation of American States became the first multinational body to raise the prospect of drug treaty reform.

The state's inspector general does not have the jurisdiction to investigate the Legislature, according to a spokesman.

Schneiderman, a former state senator, was one of several candidates who pledged during his 2010 campaign to ask the governor to expand the attorney general's jurisdiction to more generally cover state agencies and the Legislature.

His major proposal calls for the governor to sign an executive order giving the attorney general jurisdiction over corruption cases involving state departments, agencies and the legislature.

«We have been informed that New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has opted not to exercise his jurisdiction to investigate the fatal shooting of Deborah Danner by an NYPD sergeant on October 18, 2016, in her apartment at 630 Pugsley Avenue in the Bronx.

«We have jurisdiction over everything because we're New York, and every check clears New York,» said former state attorney general (and governor) Eliot Spitzer, whose high - profile prosecutions on Wall Street demonstrated the office's national reach.

In a filing today, State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said the courts do not have jurisdiction on the issue.

Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has sought jurisdiction to investigate corruption throughout state government without requiring a referral from the governor of a suspected case of misconduct, said his spokesman Eric Soufer.

«That you, lsah Hamman Misau of Hamman Misau Residence, Turaki Street, Misau, Bauchi State, on or about August 10, 2017, at Abuja and other part of Nigeria within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did make a false statement of fact to wit: that police officers pay as much as two million, five hundred thousand naira (N2.5 m) to get special promotion and posting through the Police Service Commission as published in the Daily Trust Newspaper dated August 10, 2017, knowing that such false statement of fact would harm the reputation of Mr. Ibrahim Kpotun ldris (the serving Inspector - General of Police), the Nigeria Police Force and the Police Service Commission and you thereby committed an offense.

The New York state attorney general's office said Thursday that it doesn't have jurisdiction in the police killing of a 66 - year - old emotionally disturbed woman who was shot when she attacked an officer with a baseball bat in the Bronx.

He says the local District Attorneys have full jurisdiction, and the State Comptroller, Tom DiNapoli could make what's known as a referral to the Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, and the state legislature could be holding hearState Comptroller, Tom DiNapoli could make what's known as a referral to the Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, and the state legislature could be holding hearstate legislature could be holding hearings.

In June, Mr. Cuomo signed an executive order granting Attorney General Eric Schneiderman jurisdiction over cases where a police officer kills a civilian who may have been unarmed, after the State Senate failed to support his proposals for an independent monitor to investigate such situations.

A naturopathic doctor takes rigorous professional board exams so that he or she may be licensed by a state or jurisdiction as a primary care general practice doctor.

(a) Whenever there shall be a violation of this section an application may be made by the attorney general in the name of the people of the state of New York to a court or justice having jurisdiction by a special proceeding to issue an injunction, and upon notice to the defendant of not less than five days, to enjoin and restrain the continuance of such violation; and if it shall appear to the satisfaction of the court or justice that the defendant has, in fact, violated this section, an injunction may be issued by the court or justice, enjoining and restraining any further violations, without requiring proof that any person has, in fact, been injured or damaged thereby.

Sec. 1 - 225 and Sec. 1 - 200) states that «meetings of all public agencies shall be open to the public», and defines public agency as «including any committee of, or created by, any such office, subdivision, agency, department, institution, bureau, board, commission, authority or official», and defines «meeting» as «any hearing or other proceeding of a public agency... to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public agency has supervision control, jurisdiction or advisory power», nonetheless, the State Department of Education attempted to keep the «training session» for superintendents closed to the public, stating it «is not a venue for members of the general public to participate.»

But scrutiny of the for - profits continues: «The states have opened another line of attack, with at least 24 attorneys general investigating whether for - profit colleges under their jurisdiction have engaged in false advertising, illegal recruiting practices or predatory loan schemes.»

(a) Whenever the Attorney General receives a complaint in writing signed by an individual to the effect that he is being deprived of or threatened with the loss of his right to the equal protection of the laws, on account of his race, color, religion, or national origin, by being denied equal utilization of any public facility which is owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of any State or subdivision thereof, other than a public school or public college as defined in section 401 of title IV hereof, and the Attorney General believes the complaint is meritorious and certifies that the signer or signers of such complaint are unable, in his judgment, to initiate and maintain appropriate legal proceedings for relief and that the institution of an action will materially further the orderly progress of desegregation in public facilities, the Attorney General is authorized to institute for or in the name of the United States a civil action in any appropriate district court of the United States against such parties and for such relief as may be appropriate, and such court shall have and shall exercise jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this section.

(2) signed by an individual, or his parent, to the effect that he has been denied admission to or not permitted to continue in attendance at a public college by reason of race, color, religion, or national origin, and the Attorney General believes the complaint is meritorious and certifies that the signer or signers of such complaint are unable, in his judgment, to initiate and maintain appropriate legal proceedings for relief and that the institution of an action will materially further the orderly achievement of desegregation in public education, the Attorney General is authorized, after giving notice of such complaint to the appropriate school board or college authority and after certifying that he is satisfied that such board or authority has had a reasonable time to adjust the conditions alleged in such complaint, to institute for or in the name of the United States a civil action in any appropriate district court of the United States against such parties and for such relief as may be appropriate, and such court shall have and shall exercise jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this section, provided that nothing herein shall empower any official or court of the United States to issue any order seeking to achieve a racial balance in any school by requiring the transportation of pupils or students from one school to another or one school district to another in order to achieve such racial balance, or otherwise enlarge the existing power of the court to insure compliance with constitutional standards.

To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.

The content and materials contained in this website are to be construed in accordance with and governed by the internal laws of the State of New York (as permitted by Section 5 - 1401 of the New York General Obligations Law or any similar successor provision), without giving effect to any choice of law rule that would cause the application of the laws of any jurisdiction other than the internal laws of the State of New York to the rights and duties of the parties.

The Sanctuary Advisory Council's twenty voting members represent a variety of local user groups, as well as the general public, plus seven local and state governmental jurisdictions.

The company claims the conspiracy was hatched five years ago at a meeting in La Jolla, Calif., which Exxon calls «the La Jolla playbook» and has since been spread to local jurisdictions and state attorneys general.

That campaign has led directly to investigations by New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and like - minded officials in other jurisdictions.

This is a general answer based on the state of affairs in various jurisdictions.

V. General Motors of Canada Ltd., 2014 ONCA 497 which stated at para. 66 that «[w] hen acceptance of a contract is transmitted electronically and instantaneously, the contract is usually considered to be made in the jurisdiction where the acceptance is received.»

The National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) was founded in 1907 to help attorneys general fulfill the responsibilities of their office and to assist in the delivery of high - quality legal services to the states and territorial jurisdiGeneral (NAAG) was founded in 1907 to help attorneys general fulfill the responsibilities of their office and to assist in the delivery of high - quality legal services to the states and territorial jurisdigeneral fulfill the responsibilities of their office and to assist in the delivery of high - quality legal services to the states and territorial jurisdictions.

The Court stated stating that the general rule of contract formation applied — i.e. that a contract transmitted instantaneously is made in the jurisdiction where the acceptance is received.

However, in general, they will look to cases considered by the same court and superior courts, before examining cases in other jurisdictions - this applies between different states, as well as between different countries.

The general story is that one state does not have jurisdiction over an act carried out in another state.

General Rules Operationally, the limitations imposed by the court rules of the court where a lawsuit is pending governing subpoenas (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 in federal civil lawsuits and similar rules in most state court sytems) are more restrictive than the limitations imposed on jurisdiction in civil lawsuits generally by the due process...

So, if there is more than one defendant, the forum state must have general jurisdiction over all of the defendants, or must have specific jurisdiction over all defendants over whom it does not have general jurisdiction for a reason that applies to all members of the class bringing the lawsuit.

Until recently general jurisdiction over a defendant (i.e. jurisdiction over any lawsuit against a defendant without regard to the particular facts of the case) was present in any state where a company has a permanent office for the conduct of business, under half a century of precedent on the issue that traced back to a U.S. Supreme Court case known as International Shoe v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1state where a company has a permanent office for the conduct of business, under half a century of precedent on the issue that traced back to a U.S. Supreme Court case known as International Shoe v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).

Constitutionally, Congress still has the authority to vest all U.S. District Courts with jurisdiction over any case in which the United States treated as a single state for purposes of general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction analysis.

But, while the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 allows many class action lawsuits which would otherwise be brought on exclusively state law claims in state court to be brought in federal court, or removed from state court to federal court, it does not authorize class action lawsuits that could not be brought in a state court which a U.S. District Court is located due to lack of either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction from being brought in that federal court either.

But, the decision leaves Congress with the option of potentially changing that statute which currently limits the personal jurisdiction of federal trial courts to that of a state court of general jurisdiction in the same state, as it already does in cases that are predominantly «in rem» (e.g. interpleader cases and interstate boundary and real property title disputes), in bankruptcy cases, and with respect to the subpoena power of U.S. District Courts.

Existing statutory limits on federal court jurisdiction limit the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Courts in most cases of cases to cases in which a state court in the state where the U.S. District Court is located would have either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction of the defendant (without regard to the fact that the case might be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts as a matter of subject matter jurisdiction which pertains to the nature of the cause of action asserted rather than the ties of the defendant to the forum state).

It does not prevent the California and out - of - state plaintiffs from joining together in a consolidated action in the States that have general jurisdiction over BMS.

(U.S. June 19, 2017) in which the court finds that «specific personal jurisdiction» (as opposed to «general jurisdiction») is lacking with regard to the claims of members of the class of plaintiffs who are not California residents in this case brought in a California state trial court (in an 8 - 1 decision with Justice Sotomayor dissenting).

If a forum state's courts have «general jurisdiction» over a defendant, this means that the defendant can be sued in that forum on any cause of action against that defendant arising anywhere in the world, regardless of any other relationship that the claim has to the forum state (except for claims in the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts which can be brought in a U.S. District Court located in the same state, or in an arbitration forum pursuant to a valid arbitration clause that binds the parties, an issue beyond the scope of this question and answer).

The California Superior Court denied BMS's motion to quash service of summons on the nonresidents» claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that BMS's extensive activities in the State gave the California courts general jurisdiction.

This fifth and final item in a series of posts looks at legislative efforts to change the civil jurisdiction thresholds in state limited and general jurisdiction courts in the last decade.

The Brussels I Regulation (recast) foresees as its general rule of jurisdiction that a defendant should be sued in the courts of the Member state where he is domiciled (Article 4 (1)-RRB-.

The question asked is quite jurisdiction specific and does not have a general answer even within the United States.

The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction, in very particular circumstances, to pursue a point of general importance in an immigration case not raised below, in order to ensure the state's compliance with its international obligations.