Sentences with phrase «high court judges if»

Not exact matches

If Judge Campbell forces the company to pay $ 50 million (or a similarly high amount) up front, then the company plans to take its case to the Second District Court of Appeals, which has already reversed some of Campbell's decisions.

In today's high court appeal judgement, Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, Mr Justice Owen and Mr Justice Griffith Williams said: «If the person or persons who receive or read it, brush it aside as a silly joke, or a joke in bad taste, or empty bombastic or ridiculous banter, then it would be a contradiction in terms to describe it as a message of a menacing character.»

DiFiore has close ties to Cuomo, and Republican senators asked her if she would demonstrate judicial independence if confirmed to be Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, the state's highest cCourt of Appeals, the state's highest courtcourt.

If the proposal fails, several judges would have to retire from the state's highest court.

The two on June 29, warned judges of Ghana's highest court to be wary of their conduct in the case involving the Electoral Commission and Mr Abu Ramadan if they did not want to suffer the fate of the three members of the bench who were shot to death and burnt on June 30, 1982 in the era of the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC).

The former Cabinet minister said even if he disagreed with elements of the High Court decision, the three judges were «brilliant, thoughtful, wise and decent men».

Inquests will only be held in secret if a high court judge grants the secretary of state's request.

Ako Gunn and Alistair on June 29, warned judges of Ghana's highest court to be wary of their conduct in the case involving the Electoral Commission and Mr Abu Ramadan if they did not want to suffer the fate of the three members of the bench who were shot to death and burnt on June 30, 1982 in the era of the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC).

These are the same documents two high court judges want published in the public domain and that the US reportedly threatened terminating intelligence cooperation with Britain if they were made publicly available.

«If we do so we won't have judges collect bribes to pervert justice», the leadership guru then tore into the judicial scandal that has resulted in the suspension of some 34 magistrates, circuit court and high court judges.

«I believe that the 1st defendant as a Federal High Court Judge has a lot to lose if she considered the idea of jumping bail.

If DiFiore is ultimately chosen by Cuomo, she would be only the second woman to hold the position of Chief Judge of the state's highest court, the Court of Appcourt, the Court of AppCourt of Appeals.

Just last month, in a major school funding ruling, Connecticut Superior Court Judge Thomas Moukawsher excoriated his state for watered down graduation standards that, he says, have already resulted «in unready children being sent to high school, handed degrees, and left, if they can scrape together the money, to buy basic skills at a community college.»

«Should the legislature attempt to comply with these broad directives, even if it were to be given time extensions, by enacting new legislation, then it would have made these broad changes based solely on the views of a single Superior Court judge, without review or consideration by higher judicial authority,» the appeal says.

The underlying issue for an appeal is simple: the appellate court (AC), ie Court of Appeal; a High Court judge; a circuit judge etc) may only allow an appeal if it considers the decision below was «wrong» (r 52.11 (3)-RRB-: wrong in law, wrong on the facts or because the judge exercised his discretion wrongly («plainly wrong»: Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 1 WLR 1360, [1999] 2 FLR 763); or unjust because of a procedural irregulacourt (AC), ie Court of Appeal; a High Court judge; a circuit judge etc) may only allow an appeal if it considers the decision below was «wrong» (r 52.11 (3)-RRB-: wrong in law, wrong on the facts or because the judge exercised his discretion wrongly («plainly wrong»: Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 1 WLR 1360, [1999] 2 FLR 763); or unjust because of a procedural irregulaCourt of Appeal; a High Court judge; a circuit judge etc) may only allow an appeal if it considers the decision below was «wrong» (r 52.11 (3)-RRB-: wrong in law, wrong on the facts or because the judge exercised his discretion wrongly («plainly wrong»: Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 1 WLR 1360, [1999] 2 FLR 763); or unjust because of a procedural irregulaCourt judge; a circuit judge etc) may only allow an appeal if it considers the decision below was «wrong» (r 52.11 (3)-RRB-: wrong in law, wrong on the facts or because the judge exercised his discretion wrongly («plainly wrong»: Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 1 WLR 1360, [1999] 2 FLR 763); or unjust because of a procedural irregularity.

However, in Robinson v Robinson (Disclosure)(1983) 4 FLR 102, CA Ormrod LJ said that while applications to set aside could be made by either a new action or an appeal to a higher court, there was much convenience in an application to the judge who made the original order who could determine the application and then make a new order if appropriate.

This adjudication of the Judge is called «shimpan (determination)», and if the party is not satisfied, he / she may make an appeal within 14 days, and the determination of the Family Court will be reviewed by the High Court.

The US government appealed against Judge Coleman's decision, but today it was upheld by the High Court, which gave the US authorities a deadline to assure the court that, if Giese was found guilty, «there will be no attempt to make him the subject of a civil commitment order&raCourt, which gave the US authorities a deadline to assure the court that, if Giese was found guilty, «there will be no attempt to make him the subject of a civil commitment order&racourt that, if Giese was found guilty, «there will be no attempt to make him the subject of a civil commitment order».

If it were not, the great volume of literature that has been written about this «access to justice» problem since 2007 would not have been published, and the disturbingly high and increasing percentages of unrepresented litigants whom judges are warning are clogging their courts, would not be happening.»

Michael Furness QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, held that Mrs W did not intend Mrs M to take the account beneficially: - If Mrs W intended to give the account to Mrs M after her death she did not give a reason for doing so.

If Judge Robart had determined that multilateral patent pool negotiations are the only or always the best way to arrive at FRAND rates, an appeals court might have disagreed and might have found that if a company elects not to participate in a pool, it should still be free to seek higher royalties through bilateral negotiationIf Judge Robart had determined that multilateral patent pool negotiations are the only or always the best way to arrive at FRAND rates, an appeals court might have disagreed and might have found that if a company elects not to participate in a pool, it should still be free to seek higher royalties through bilateral negotiationif a company elects not to participate in a pool, it should still be free to seek higher royalties through bilateral negotiations.

If the judge is found to have used his / her discretion appropriately, then your appeal may not be successful, but when the judge has made a serious mistake, pursuing an appeal to a higher Court may be the right course of action.

Does this mean that if I, for example, were to (temporarily) take a part - time gig as a Small Claims Court (or even higher) judge, I could write an article titled «The Incoherence of... [Judge X] and survive the LSUC disciplinary heajudge, I could write an article titled «The Incoherence of... [Judge X] and survive the LSUC disciplinary heaJudge X] and survive the LSUC disciplinary hearing?

Also, litigants in civil law had an appeal as a right (i.e. judges couldn't refuse to hear the appeal) to the Supreme Court of Canada if the amount involved was high enough.

Appeal: If a judge makes an error of law or fact on a decision, another «higher» court will hear an appeal of the decision.

If a child / young person is being made / already subject to a care order, generally speaking proceedings for authorisation of any DoL should be made in the Family Court (not the High Court) and allocated to a s. 9 Circuit Judge (who is authorised to deal with both the care proceedings and any authorisation of Article 5 interferences).

If the child is made a party, the court must also consider whether the case is being dealt with by the correct level of judge in the Family Court or High Ccourt must also consider whether the case is being dealt with by the correct level of judge in the Family Court or High CCourt or High CourtCourt.

If either of the parties considers that the judge committed an error, that party can appeal the judgment to a higher court.

If I could claim to have fully considered the sum of your collective contributions concerning stare decisis as emphasizing the need for judges at first instance to be fully informed of the applicable law and to follow it, then I would have expanded my speculative musings to suggest that notoriety of a lower court decision is what gives it the potential to muscle its way into gaining equal consideration alongside authoritative higher court rulings when the issue before the court is novel.

On the rare occasions that conduct is a relevant factor, the following approach may be adopted; Allegations of conduct should be included in Form E although the parties should be discouraged from raising allegations of conduct unless absolutely necessary; The district judge should clarify at the directions appointment whether conduct is being pursued and, if so, order particulars to be given of the precise allegations relied on and give directions as to the evidence to be adduced by each party; An alternative route may be to defer the filing and service of conduct statements until after the family dispute resolution hearing to allow potential settlement to be explored; It should be taken into account that conduct is one of the relevant considerations in determining whether proceedings should be transferred to the High Court, although conduct alone is unlikely to be sufficient to justify a transfer.

(And if you are subject to the court and disagree with the judge's assertion of the law then your recourses are appeals to higher courts, attempts to have the law changed or clarified, and / or attempting to remove the judge from his seat.)

Thus, it may be now that courts will be less interventionist in striking down high pay - offs (especially as Sedley LJ said that the judge had erred «by letting himself be drawn into acting more nearly as an auditor than as a judge» — a neat phrase for counsel to throw at any judge tempted to do likewise) and if the new government want to stop such payments this puts the ball very much back into their (legislative) court.

In an aside the High Court judge mentioned that those seeking the Reviews» disclosure may not find the smoking gun they are looking for if the Reviews are ultimately published.

Cases can be sorted easily chronologically, by highest sentence, by lowest sentence, by level of court, or by judge if you're trying to discover whether your particular jurist is heavy - hitter (pro tip: that's a question you should have researched before the sentencing stage).

However, in cases where a judge concludes that a child would greatly benefit from higher education such as if he particularly has good grades — and the non-custodial parent has an ability to pay for college — the court has the option of awarding post-secondary support.

Collaborative Law is worth considering if some or all of the following are true for you: (a) you want a civilized, rational resolution of the issues, (b) you would like to keep open the possibility of a viable working relationship with your partner down the road, (c) you and your partner will be raising children together and you want the best working relationship possible, (d) you want to protect your children from the harm associated with litigation between parents, (e) you have ethical or spiritual beliefs that place high value on taking personal responsibility for handling conflicts with integrity, (f) you value control and autonomous decision making and do not want to hand over decisions about restructuring your financial and parenting arrangements to a stranger (a judge), (g) you recognize the restricted and often unpredictable range of outcomes and «rough justice» generally available in the public court system and want a more creative and individualized range of choices available to you and your spouse or partner for resolving the issues.