Sentences with phrase «hold by a federal appeals court»

Not exact matches

Justice Agim also held that the judgment of the Lagos Division of the Federal High Court delivered on February 18, 2013 in favour of Ubah and his company had since 2015 been set aside by the Court of Appeal, Lagos, in 2015.

However, the travel ban, which is currently on hold because of a decision by the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, has other elected officials in the county, specifically Democrats, worried about Astorino's support for the ban and that it does in fact unfairly target Muslims.

A federal appeals court has ruled that while states may consider retirement accounts held by the spouses of nursing...

Meanwhile, earlier this month, the Federal Court of Appeal agreed to hear an appeal by air passenger rights advocate Gabor Lukacs over whether the CTA has the jurisdiction to permit NewLeaf to operate without a licence, arguing that other companies that have operated under similar business models have been required to hold licAppeal agreed to hear an appeal by air passenger rights advocate Gabor Lukacs over whether the CTA has the jurisdiction to permit NewLeaf to operate without a licence, arguing that other companies that have operated under similar business models have been required to hold licappeal by air passenger rights advocate Gabor Lukacs over whether the CTA has the jurisdiction to permit NewLeaf to operate without a licence, arguing that other companies that have operated under similar business models have been required to hold licences.

Instead the Federal Court of Appeal in late 2014 reinforced a «pro-patentee» approach by applying the «rule in favour of saving an invention rather than invalidating it» and is now consistently holding that Promises must be «explicit» ie.

In B&B Hardware v. Hargis Industries, the Supreme Court held that, under some circumstances, determinations by the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board could have preclusive effect in subsequent federal court litigation involving the identical iCourt held that, under some circumstances, determinations by the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board could have preclusive effect in subsequent federal court litigation involving the identical icourt litigation involving the identical issue.

But the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, Virginia, held that the hearing was prohibited by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which provides that if a federal habeas petitioner has «failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in state court proceedings,» a federal habeas court «shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim» regardless of the reasons for this faiCourt of Appeals at Richmond, Virginia, held that the hearing was prohibited by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which provides that if a federal habeas petitioner has «failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in state court proceedings,» a federal habeas court «shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim» regardless of the reasons for this faicourt proceedings,» a federal habeas court «shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim» regardless of the reasons for this faicourt «shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim» regardless of the reasons for this failure.

The Federal Court of Appeal recognized this power in 1989 in its decision in Kahlon v. MEI [1989] FCJ no. 104, when, citing from Justice Thurlow in an earlier decision, it held that the issue was not whether the decision made by a visa officer that an applicant was in a prohibited class (inadmissible) was correct but whether the person was in fact one of the prohibited class.

SOUTHFIELD, Mich. — On Friday, June 20, 2014 the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a finding that Brooks Kushman «s client, Infection Prevention Technologies LLC (IPT), did not infringe two patents related to ultraviolet sterilization devices held by Lumalier Corp..

Specifically, the Tribunal held that the test for discrimination was the same in all cases and expressly rejected the family status test set out by the Federal Court of Appeal in Johnstone, which it viewed as creating a higher standard for family status claims than cases based on other forms of discrimination.

Maricopa County, Arizona, can be held liable for racial profiling by former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a federal appeals court ruled Monday.

As we reported, on appeal the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) held that the trial judge erred by rejecting the relevance of an existing NIA aappeal the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) held that the trial judge erred by rejecting the relevance of an existing NIA aAppeal (FCA) held that the trial judge erred by rejecting the relevance of an existing NIA at law.

The adjudicator's decision was overturned on appeal by the Federal Court, which held that an employer can dismiss an employee without cause so long as it gives notice or pay in lieu of notice in accordance with the Code.

denied, 541 U.S. 1085 (2004): A federal appeals court held that federal courts should abstain from hearing a constitutional challenge to the canons by a judge who was the subject of an imminent disciplinary proceeding; instead, the judge must raise his constitutional claims in the disciplinary process itself.

The procedure for determining equivalency was determined by the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal, which held that the essential elements must be determined by the precise statutory words used.

Represented the United States Trade Representative (USTR) as respondent in a judicial review before the Federal Court of Appeal brought by the applicants to question the decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal in an antidumping and subsidy case where the tribunal held, in favour of the USTR, that there was no injury to the applicants.

The Federal Court of Appeal held that whether an adjudicator has a legal obligation to consider an argument is part of his or her duty of procedural fairness — which is assessed by the courts on a standard of correctness.

On May 2nd, the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan held that the federal government does not breach section 8 of the Charter by collecting census information under threat of prosecution.

Administrative law — Judicial review — Municipal law — Taxation — Real property tax — Payments made by Federal Crown in lieu of real property tax — Assessed value of Halifax Citadel — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister is unconstrained by the assessed value of the property determined by the assessment authority in determining the property value of a federal property for purposes of the PILT Act — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister acted reasonably in determining the property value of the Halifax Citadel lands (adopting the determination of the Dispute Advisory Panel appointed under the Act), and in particular in valuing the portion of the lands upon which are located improvements which are exempt from payments in lieu of taxes, representing 47 of 49 acres of the site, at $ 10 — Whether the Court should consider the present case as it raises similar issues as Montréal (City) v. Montréal Port Authority 2010 SCC 14, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 427, but from the perspective of assessed value — Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Federal Crown in lieu of real property tax — Assessed value of Halifax Citadel — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister is unconstrained by the assessed value of the property determined by the assessment authority in determining the property value of a federal property for purposes of the PILT Act — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister acted reasonably in determining the property value of the Halifax Citadel lands (adopting the determination of the Dispute Advisory Panel appointed under the Act), and in particular in valuing the portion of the lands upon which are located improvements which are exempt from payments in lieu of taxes, representing 47 of 49 acres of the site, at $ 10 — Whether the Court should consider the present case as it raises similar issues as Montréal (City) v. Montréal Port Authority 2010 SCC 14, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 427, but from the perspective of assessed value — Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister is unconstrained by the assessed value of the property determined by the assessment authority in determining the property value of a federal property for purposes of the PILT Act — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister acted reasonably in determining the property value of the Halifax Citadel lands (adopting the determination of the Dispute Advisory Panel appointed under the Act), and in particular in valuing the portion of the lands upon which are located improvements which are exempt from payments in lieu of taxes, representing 47 of 49 acres of the site, at $ 10 — Whether the Court should consider the present case as it raises similar issues as Montréal (City) v. Montréal Port Authority 2010 SCC 14, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 427, but from the perspective of assessed value — Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. federal property for purposes of the PILT Act — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister acted reasonably in determining the property value of the Halifax Citadel lands (adopting the determination of the Dispute Advisory Panel appointed under the Act), and in particular in valuing the portion of the lands upon which are located improvements which are exempt from payments in lieu of taxes, representing 47 of 49 acres of the site, at $ 10 — Whether the Court should consider the present case as it raises similar issues as Montréal (City) v. Montréal Port Authority 2010 SCC 14, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 427, but from the perspective of assessed value — Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister acted reasonably in determining the property value of the Halifax Citadel lands (adopting the determination of the Dispute Advisory Panel appointed under the Act), and in particular in valuing the portion of the lands upon which are located improvements which are exempt from payments in lieu of taxes, representing 47 of 49 acres of the site, at $ 10 — Whether the Court should consider the present case as it raises similar issues as Montréal (City) v. Montréal Port Authority 2010 SCC 14, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 427, but from the perspective of assessed value — Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. M - 13.

If letters and private documents can thus be seized and held and used in evidence against a citizen accused of an offense, the protection of the Fourth Amendment declaring his right to be secure against such searches and seizures is of no value, and, so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as well be stricken from the Constitution... The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain conviction by means of unlawful seizures and enforced confessions, the latter often obtained after subjecting accused persons to unwarranted practices destructive of rights secured by the Federal Constitution, should find no sanction in the judgments of the courts which are charged at all times with the support of the Constitution and to which people of all conditions have a right to appeal for the maintenance of such fundamental rights.

On an issue of first impression in North Carolina, the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that StubHub could not be held liable for the resale of allegedly overpriced Hannah Montana concert tickets by third - party sellers on its website based on federal immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

A U.S. federal appeals court has held that a copyright holder does not waive his or her rights by making software freely available and can enforce conditions in a free software license against developers and end users of the software.

The Third Circuit has become the third federal appeals court to hold that a lender could violate the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act by charging consumers higher fees for a service than it paid a third - party company when the lender provided no additional service.