Sentences with phrase «issue in the appeals panel»

Kim says the only issue in the appeals panel decision is that the jury instructions were incorrect, because of the recent Supreme Court decision, which involved former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and his wife.

Kim said the only issue in the appeals panel decision is that the jury instructions were incorrect, because of the recent Supreme Court decision, which involved former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and his wife.

Not exact matches

In August 1987, under FCC Chairman Dennis R. Patrick, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4 - 0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989, though the Court stated in their decision that they made «that determination without reaching the constitutional issue.&raquIn August 1987, under FCC Chairman Dennis R. Patrick, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4 - 0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989, though the Court stated in their decision that they made «that determination without reaching the constitutional issue.&raquin the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989, though the Court stated in their decision that they made «that determination without reaching the constitutional issue.&raquin February 1989, though the Court stated in their decision that they made «that determination without reaching the constitutional issue.&raquin their decision that they made «that determination without reaching the constitutional issue.»

He appealed for action on the resolution of inter-professional rivalry in health care in the country, noting that a panel headed by Alhaji Yayale Ahmed, was convened in 2014 to look into the issues.

However, in considering the main appeal, a panel of five Justices of the Supreme Court in a unanimous judgment today resolved all the issues against the appellant (Daudu) and accordingly dismissed the appeal in its entirety.

In a unanimous judgment delivered by the Justice Ibrahim Saulawa - led panel, the appeal court nullified the Certificate of Return issued to Miller by the Independent National Electoral Commission.

Because Justice Sonia Sotomayor recused herself — she sat on the panel that reviewed the issue in the appeals court — only eight justices heard the arguments.

No, according to Mr Justice Charles in the Administrative Court in February who, on the facts, upheld a decision of the Adjudication Panel Appeal Tribunal that the councillor's behaviour breached the Code of Conduct (the Code) whilst remitting the issue of sanction to a differently constituted Appeals Tribunal (R (Mullaney) v The Adjudication Panel for England [2009] EWHC 72 (Admin), [2009] All ER (D) 102 (Feb)-RRB-.

CCR appealed the decision, arguing before a three - judge panel in November 2007, but the Court of Appeals issued a 2 - 1 decision in June 2008 along similar lines

In a decision issued on October 24, 2010, a panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal came down firmly on the side of the narrow view espoused by the House of Lords.

The Richmond, Virginia - based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in an unusual en banc ruling before there was a panel decision, upheld the preliminary injunction issued by the Maryland court, concluding that the executive order was based on religious animus.

In a recent decision, a three - judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) acted properly in issuing a final decision as to some — but not all — claims challenged in.In a recent decision, a three - judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) acted properly in issuing a final decision as to some — but not all — claims challenged in.in issuing a final decision as to some — but not all — claims challenged in.in...

In a decision released earlier this month a strong panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal took a look at one aspect of the issue of what constitutes a «record,» in this case for the purposes of applying the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M. 5In a decision released earlier this month a strong panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal took a look at one aspect of the issue of what constitutes a «record,» in this case for the purposes of applying the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M. 5in this case for the purposes of applying the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M. 56.

The final portion of this opinion that a three - judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued today contains an interesting discussion of the potential for overlap between a jury's award of damages for emotional distress and what a jury might have awarded had it been advised (as it should have been but was not at the original trial) that an award of punitive damages in favor of the plaintiff was appropriate.

A sharply divided panel of the Seventh Circuit, led by Judge Posner, addressed the issue of such research in deciding an appeal by a pro se prisoner alleging his civil rights had been violated by inadequate medical treatment.21 Judge Posner's majority opinion reversing the judgment below cited facts from various extrarecord medical websites, including Wikipedia.

Many of the issues that were argued in the appeal are up for another hearing at the Court of Appeal, this time before a five - member panel in Mayappeal are up for another hearing at the Court of Appeal, this time before a five - member panel in MayAppeal, this time before a five - member panel in May 2018.

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. M - 13.

Next, in terms of the institution of the court, currently including 21 judges and 8 supernumerary judges, Justice Morrissette noted the immense advantage of being able to solicit electronic comments on draft judgments as opposed to have a «paper river» betwen Montréal and Québec City where the Court sits (note: all appeal judges are solicited for comments before the final judgment is issued; not only the chosen panel of 3 or 5 judges).

«[T] he weight of authority suggests that accurate news reporting — even when it is likely to have an adverse impact on the subjects of the report — usually does not give rise to an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress»: Yesterday, a unanimous three - judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a decision affirming a federal district court's dismissal of claims for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress asserted by two former undercover police officers against a television station in Albuquerque that had revealed their identities and their undercover status in the context of a televised report about their suspected involvement in an alleged incident of sexual assault.

At the request of the plaintiffs in both cases, the Court stated that it would appoint a special five - judge panel to hear the two appeals and reconsider the issues raised by Timminco.

The Society sought leave to intervene in the appeal because the reasons for decision of the Hearing Panel which convicted Mr. Groia of professional misconduct raise important issues regarding professionalism and civility and regarding the discipline process.

In 2003 the Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC), set up under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, took over the issuing of guidelines, with the panel now advising the SGC rather than the Court of Appeal.

None of these propositions is correct,» wrote appeal panel chairman David Wright in the Feb. 18 decision dismissing the LSUC's appeal of a 2013 hearing panel's ruling on the issue.

Mr. Groia's appeal also raises the important issue of how law society disciplinary panels may use comments about a lawyer's conduct made by an adjudicator in a prior proceeding.

In support of the Appeal Panel's decision, the Director argues that the «Important Notes» mentioned above, in the compliance order and the notice that read «submitting a Compliance Notice will not prevent an administrative penalty from being issued» effectively alerts anyone issued such a Notice on the appeal procesIn support of the Appeal Panel's decision, the Director argues that the «Important Notes» mentioned above, in the compliance order and the notice that read «submitting a Compliance Notice will not prevent an administrative penalty from being issued» effectively alerts anyone issued such a Notice on the appeal prAppeal Panel's decision, the Director argues that the «Important Notes» mentioned above, in the compliance order and the notice that read «submitting a Compliance Notice will not prevent an administrative penalty from being issued» effectively alerts anyone issued such a Notice on the appeal procesin the compliance order and the notice that read «submitting a Compliance Notice will not prevent an administrative penalty from being issued» effectively alerts anyone issued such a Notice on the appeal prappeal process.

In the process, Justice Ikola, writing for a 3 - 0 panel of our local Court of Appeal, faced some interesting legal issues relating to fee entitlement under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA) or the «tort of another» doctrine.