Sentences with phrase «in court cases did»

since you have all these upvotes, @BenMiller I want to point out the people in the court case did seek professional help, and still would up in tax court and lost.

Not exact matches

At the opening of the trial in Rome, the U.S. investment bank the other defendants asked a three - judge panel at the Court of Accounts, which rules on abuses of public funds, to reject the case in an acknowledgement that the judges do not have jurisdiction, Marco Fratini, one of the judges, said.

If people get their news from the president's Twitter (twtr) feed — or in the case of his Supreme Court nominees — via Facebook (fb) Live, what does that mean for journalists and their audiences?

In 1981, the United States Supreme Court held in a case named Plyler v. Doe that states must provide public education to undocumented alien children to the same extent they provide public education to citizenIn 1981, the United States Supreme Court held in a case named Plyler v. Doe that states must provide public education to undocumented alien children to the same extent they provide public education to citizenin a case named Plyler v. Doe that states must provide public education to undocumented alien children to the same extent they provide public education to citizens.

«While we remain open to finding some reasonable solutions to address the government's concern, we do expect this case will ultimately be litigated in court,» Chief Executive Randall Stephenson told analysts on a conference call.

When I was working on it from 1974 to 1994, it did not cross my mind that a legal case that would end up in the Supreme Court would be the consequence of my work and I'm so gratified that it was a unanimous decision.»

The Supreme Court allowed parts of Trump's ban to go into effect until it ultimately decides the case in October, but the justices said the ban does not apply to non-citizens who have formal relationships with people or entities in the U.S..

Florida's state Supreme Court ruled that a defendant in a capital case doesn't have the right to have a jury determine that.

«Many of these types of claims are designed to simply get a payout from an employer who did not want to get bound up in the expense of a court case».

Even if Schneiderman does take the case to court, it will probably go through years of appeals through the New York system, with the case going in front of 13 judges who will each have their take on what constitutes gambling.

Most defendants either don't bother to show up in court, in which case National Collegiate gets a default judgment and can collect the money, or they settle.

The judicial system does not track civil cases filed in circuit court by the section of law cited, but he does not remember hearing of any lawsuit based on the disparagement law being filed in circuit court anywhere in South Dakota.

Fun Fact: Says Niño: «While we don't wear white hats, the collective fixer team have lent a helping hand in everything from national elections, Fortune 50 mergers and acquisitions to global humanitarian crises, Oscar - award winning films and even a couple of U.S. Supreme Court cases.

«The bottom line is I don't think you're going to see the status quo prevail in any event, regardless of the court case.

Especially during September, 190 cases having to do with private lending disputes, and concerning nearly 300 million yuan, were filed in courts in Luwan district, where most of the business owners who have disappeared had their factories.

«Because Congress did not have a «strong basis of evidence» upon which to conclude that DoD was a passive participant in pervasive, nationwide racial discrimination — at least not on the evidence produced by DoD and relied on by the district court in this case — the statute fails strict scrutiny,» the decision stated.

Q. On the reference case the Supreme Court of Canada is slated to hear sometime in the spring, do you plan to file arguments with the court supporting the federal government's posiCourt of Canada is slated to hear sometime in the spring, do you plan to file arguments with the court supporting the federal government's posicourt supporting the federal government's position?

They had the courts do it for them; they put the judges in they wanted, then they failed to appeal, failed to fight the case in court.»

United States Trump threatens to withhold support from countries who don't back U.S. World Cup bid, Toronto Star Former police officer charged in «Golden State Killer» case due in California court Friday, Reuters

It points out that CFPB's reply does not challenge the Supreme Court's recognition that a federal court does not have jurisdiction in cases where the government lacks an authorized representaCourt's recognition that a federal court does not have jurisdiction in cases where the government lacks an authorized representacourt does not have jurisdiction in cases where the government lacks an authorized representative.

As my PaidContent colleague Jeff John Roberts reported last month, Harris» attempt to have this court order struck down failed for a somewhat unusual reason: namely, the judge hearing the case decided that Harris did not have any legal interest in the tweets he sent, because such rights only apply to things a user actually owns — and users do not own their tweets for the purposes of the U.S. Constitution.

The district court in First Solar ultimately applied the standard from the Daou line of cases and held that plaintiffs did not need to show that the market reacted to the fact that First Solar had committed fraud in order to satisfy the loss causation requirement.

I think the Supreme Court of Canada would deal with it [quickly], because I don't think the law is very complicated in this case.

In their first legal move since Benchmark filed its lawsuit on Thursday, Kalanick's team is arguing that the court doesn't have jurisdiction over the case.

There are a number of examples in Canadian case law where issuers were attempting to sell «utilities» or something similar to modern day tokens and coins, where the court simply didn't buy the argument.

When Sheila Hobson — an employee at a Murphy Oil gas station in Calera, Alabama and a party in the upcoming Supreme Court case — realized she was getting ripped off by her employer, she decided to do something about it.

I said it to hotair already, but I will expand it a bit for you: what is evidence for some is not accepted by everyone; just as in a court case, some jurors are convinced with very little evidence while some people can not be convinced of something no matter how much evidence there is... much of this comes from how you were raised and your own personal world view, for many people God does not fit into their world view so whatever evidence there is they close their eyes and say, «No, I don't believe that!»

One need not be a historian of education or a theologian to assess the damage done to public education and then to society in general by how these cases were decided and what public school officials were empowered to do (or so they believed) despite the clearly given cautions from the Supreme Court itself.

If it doesn't check out, you should try and refine the understanding, compare more, dig deeper, adjust... Like in a court case.

Full of himself, he stepped up when his case was called, and began, as we were taught to do in law school: «May it please the court, my name is Edward R. Lev and I represent the Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago.»

Lively, with representation by Liberty Counsel (an evangelical legal organization), responded that in both the U.S. and Uganda he exercised constitutionally protected speech rights; that he opposes violence and neither committed nor plotted any; that Uganda did not in fact pass a proposed draconian anti-gay law, and that in any case Uganda's political institutions, instead of himself, are responsible for its political decisions; and that the court lacks jurisdiction and the plaintiffs lack standing.

When we seek instead to «pay something back to the victims and bring them closure,» we are doing a justice either lower (as in civil - court cases) or higher (as in repaying blood with blood)» but, in any case, something that should not be a model for how we deal with criminals.

As the late legal historian Kermit Hall notes, the court in this case «did not believe it was granting Catholics a benefit to which persons of other beliefs are not entitled.»

What if, as I believe is true in the present case, policies and court orders invite the doing of that which virtue would inhibit, even if it can not always effectively prohibit?

In 2014, when Obamacare came before the Supreme Court via the Hobby Lobby case, the court ruled 5 — 4 that employers who objected to the contraceptive mandate on religious grounds didn't have to offer birth control directly to female emploCourt via the Hobby Lobby case, the court ruled 5 — 4 that employers who objected to the contraceptive mandate on religious grounds didn't have to offer birth control directly to female emplocourt ruled 5 — 4 that employers who objected to the contraceptive mandate on religious grounds didn't have to offer birth control directly to female employees.

It is «argue» — and these days when we use the word in the street it doesn't mean «present our case,» as when one argues a case before the Supreme Court; rather, it is synonymous with «fight.»

Funny that the Denver shooter was in court and NO ONE EVER MENTIONED IF HIS CHRISTIAN OR ANY OTHER FAITH... I swear if his name was Mohammad than the whole country would be in flames... BUT he was mentally ill so it was justified and the case was closed quietly so everyone can go back to what they do since it has no value to the media... OPEN YOUR EYE and ears...

For justice is done in the particular case, and until tried in the courts, abstract principles have no more authority than the people who declare them.

That wasn't even Olson's case, but with assists from a federal district court judge who came out as being in a same - sex relationship only after ruling and retiring, and elected officials who chose to forgo their traditional duty to vigorously defend state law, Olson and Boies did succeed in disenfranchising millions of Californians on a procedural technicality.

I am certain there have been many cases in the U.S. history that the court simply and clearly distinguished between free speech and hate speech and has set very heavy sentences for folks who did not care if their words cause harm.

While there are difficult verses (such as «eye for eye, tooth for tooth» and «turn the other cheek»), in context, they do not contradict (with that case, Moses was setting up punishment in court, while Jesus was telling how individuals should live).

«In previous conversion cases involving minors, the courts did not go far enough to state what happens when the child reaches adulthood.

As for the conclusion of Aidan O'Neill QC, that schools will be within their statutory rights to dismiss staff who refuse to use stories or textbooks promoting same - sex marriage and that parents who object to gay marriage being taught to their children will have no right to withdraw their children from lessons, does that sound at all unlikely, given the cases of the Strasbourg four, which were considered by the European Court of Justice in September?

This is such a truism that one is almost ashamed to pen the words, and yet it remains a fact that, in a great deal of the more conservative biblical scholarship, it does seem to be assumed that the appeal to factual accuracy would he as valid and important a factor in the case of ancient Near Eastern religious texts as it would be in a modern western court of law or in a somewhat literally - minded western congregation.

In the now famous Goodridge case, the Court leaned critically on the insistence that procreation is not a requirement of marriage, and that the laws on marriage «do not privilege procreative heterosexual intercourse between married people above every other form of adult intimacy.»

The courts have not been a friend to the people and I hope in this case they do the right thing.

The court voted to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act and remand the decision of the Ninth Circuit in the Proposition 8 case, holding that California's Proposition 8 defenders didn't have standing.

Under the test, first proposed by Supreme Court Justice Sandra O'Connor in a 1984 case from Pawtucket, Rhode Island, a display violates the Establishment Clause if it amounts to an official endorsement of religion, that is, if it suggests that the government approves a particular religious message (or disapproves such a message, though that issue does not regularly arise).

In no way does this article indicate any Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case.

if we do not honor God's name today sanctifying our lives, in the day of reckoning in court of God, we will not have words to defend our case.