Sentences with phrase «judge followed the test»

Not exact matches

Judge and co-author John D. Kammeyer - Mueller of the Warrington College of Business looked at data collected as part of a multi-decade study that followed more than 1,500 California children who had scored high on intelligence tests.

Many who hated Scalia's rulings could not help but be entertained by his razor - sharp writing, which he used especially in his dissenting opinions to carve up the majority's reasoning (my favorite is Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where among other things he referred to the majority's «Nietzschean vision of us unelected, life - tenured judges — leading a Volk who will be «tested by following»» the Court's rulings obediently).

This famous principle, which I will call «the experienced judges» test», is stated as follows: «Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference irrespective of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure» (U12).

A panel of local food media judges blind taste tested the different lamb dishes, declaring the following winners in each category:

• too much school time is given over to test prep — and the pressure to lift scores leads to cheating and other unsavory practices; • subjects and accomplishments that aren't tested — art, creativity, leadership, independent thinking, etc. — are getting squeezed if not discarded; • teachers are losing their freedom to practice their craft, to make classes interesting and stimulating, and to act like professionals; • the curricular homogenizing that generally follows from standardized tests and state (or national) standards represents an undesirable usurpation of school autonomy, teacher freedom, and local control by distant authorities; and • judging teachers and schools by pupil test scores is inaccurate and unfair, given the kids» different starting points and home circumstances, the variation in class sizes and school resources, and the many other services that schools and teachers are now expected to provide their students.

First the children present their research, marketing plans, budgets and products to a team of judges and this is followed by the products being put to test «in - market» as they go on sale on stalls at the schools.

If you had a children in the Madison, Connecticut public schools you would have received the following a letter from Superintendent Thomas Scarice and Assistant Superintendent Gail Dahling - Hench, a letter that honestly and truthfully explains why the Common Core SBAC test is not an appropriate tool or mechanism to judge our children, their teachers or our public schools.

Accordingly, the following question would be inappropriate to ask judges as they review the relationship between content standards and the items on an accountability test: Is this test item in agreement with the curricular aim it is intended to measure?

Since Matthew Marler hasn't stepped in to judge its soundness I decided to test it myself with the following Monte Carlo simulation.

It follows that the trial judge erred in law by applying a more lenient test.

The appeal is limited to the following submission: did the application judge err in concluding the «purpose test» contained in Amos is met in the circumstances (was the incident in question really an «accident»)?

The Court concluded with the following short summary of the test Judges are to use in establishing «causation» in BC negligence lawsuits:

The trial judge applied the following test for harassment:

On a petition for writ of mandamus, the Federal Circuit ordered the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to transfer venue of a patent action — rejecting the four - part venue test proposed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in TC Heartland LLC...

Waller LJ: As to the law the judge had stated: «Following the guidance of the Court of Appeal in Mullin v Richards [1998] 1 WLR 1305 -LSB-[1998] 1 All ER 920], I am satisfied that the test is whether an ordinarily prudent and reasonable 13 - year - old schoolboy in each defendant's situation would have realised that his actions gave rise to a risk of injury.»

«Typically, the rules of evidence follow a specific pattern: if the evidence you present to a judge meets the test established by the rules of evidence in your jurisdiction then the judge shall allow it into evidence.

In Re W (children)(leave to remove)[2008] 2 FCR 420 Charles J suggested that such meetings, while under debate, should be subject to the following considerations: l the format, structure, content and purpose of the meeting; l the role of the judge; l the participation and presence of others in or at the meeting; l what is to be passed on to anyone not present or represented at the meeting; l how matters asserted by a child to the judge are to be tested; l whether anything that is not passed on to the parties can be taken into account by the judge; and l what explanation is to be given to the child before and after the meeting.

Under the new version of the best interest test, a judge needs to ask all of the following questions about proposed parenting time and custody arrangements:

So if you are a lawyer practicing for many years, you may have some intuition about the way to go in a certain case and now you can test that intuition versus the data and say, okay, I think or I have heard this judge kind of behaves the following way, let me go through the data, and you may end up still making the same decision you were going to make before, or you might make a completely different decision, but now it's a data - driven decision.

[11] The trial judge followed the mobility test from Gordon v Goertz, 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1996] 2 SCR 27, 134 DLR (4th) 321 [Gordon].

The history of Resurface demonstrates that there was confusion in this area following Athey v. Leonati — the trial judge applied the «but for» test but the Alberta Court of Appeal applied the «material contribution» test.

The test that the judge applies when deciding if a defendant is unfit to plead remains that set down in the 1836 case of Pritchard [7] Following the case of Davies [8], this was generally understood to require a defendant to be able to: plead to the indictment, understand the course of proceedings, instruct a lawyer, challenge a juror and understand the evidence.

If ICC judges follow, like they did in the past, the Kunarac test (the conflict — or occupation — «must play a substantial role in the perpetrator's decision, in his ability to commit the crime or in the manner in which the conduct was ultimately committed»), there is no reason to expect the Court to question the existence of a sufficient nexus.

In closing this long post (sorry), you have to ask yourself the following: Can I write a better resume for myself than someone who has trained, been tested by a panel of judges, writes resumes daily, has access to a network of resume writers, resources to craft my resume, enters resume contest (yes.