Sentences with phrase «judge of the court below»

It is not appropriate for a single judge of the court below to engage in matters of practice and procedure in what I call judicial individualism.

Not exact matches

He insisted he would only refer the case to the court of appeal if «he believes that it falls significantly below what any judge could reasonably have passed», and stressed his actions so far did not imply any criticism of the sentencing judge.

The governor entered the Court of Appeals through the same door as its judges, sitting beside the robed jurists as he gazed down upon the state's attorney general, comptroller and prosecutors in the pews below.

As your will read later below, scientific consensus is just as important as being judged by a jury of your peers in a court of law.

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.

(school exclusion, fights and serious injury; bullying of assailant; Governors reinstated excluded child; victim (the bully) sought JR of that decision; Governors capitulated; excluded child arguing that in its discretion court should not order a re-hearing by Governors as alternative remedy and hardship to him as a third party; absence of reasons of Judge below).

On Final Appeal In front of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, the plaintiff made essentially the same arguments as below and convinced the court that the trial judge was proper in increasing the amount of the damages aCourt of South Carolina, the plaintiff made essentially the same arguments as below and convinced the court that the trial judge was proper in increasing the amount of the damages acourt that the trial judge was proper in increasing the amount of the damages award.

In a decision important to high - dollar white - collar prosecutions, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals bolstered the broad discretion of trial judges to issue sentences far below, or far above, sentencing guidelines.

I can offer only anecdotal evidence in response to your suggestion that the idea that many district court judges feel that the Guidelines are too harsh is «silly,» but the district court judge for whom I clerk definitely feels that way and has imposed many below - Guidelines sentences since Booker (relatively few of which have been appealed by the government).

Lord Justice Wilson rejected these arguments: the judge «was bound to interfere» with the order below; and the way in which he did so «could not reasonably be challenged in [the Court of Appeal]».

As the court of appeal tried to explain, «although the judge below fell into error, it does not affect what was in fact a just and proportionate sentence».

The error by the lower court: The Court of Appeal decided that the judge below made errors when she set aside the order of the inquiry commicourt: The Court of Appeal decided that the judge below made errors when she set aside the order of the inquiry commiCourt of Appeal decided that the judge below made errors when she set aside the order of the inquiry committee.

Cases of Gregoire & Kumar (ONCA, 2008) referred to below in H.L., [2009] O.J. No. 3572 (SCJ, Hill J): Analysis 25 On the appeal, without the benefit of the June 20 and June 27, 2008 transcripts, the court raised with the parties the propriety of the pre-trial justice presiding as the sentencing trial judge.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Developing a SCOTUS short list of district court judges:

There are two neutral citation sources for first instance family judgments below the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal (each of which report their own family cases): judgements of Family Division judges (EWHC (Fam)-RRB- and of other family court cases (ECourt and Court of Appeal (each of which report their own family cases): judgements of Family Division judges (EWHC (Fam)-RRB- and of other family court cases (ECourt of Appeal (each of which report their own family cases): judgements of Family Division judges (EWHC (Fam)-RRB- and of other family court cases (Ecourt cases (EWFC).

First, it addresses questions concerning the jurisdiction of this Court and the courts below in relation to the disciplinary procedure for provincially appointed judges put in place by the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.Q., c. T - 16 («C.J.A.&racourts below in relation to the disciplinary procedure for provincially appointed judges put in place by the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.Q., c. T - 16 («C.J.A.&raCourts of Justice Act, R.S.Q., c. T - 16 («C.J.A.»).

We can welcome the brave new world of child support magistrates» court appeals in the county court (I know of two circuit judges who, to my knowledge, have experience of one child support case each; and on the same point they made different decisions — which is relevant, as will be seen below).

The salary of a high court judge is miles below the taxable earnings of a top commercial QC.

During recent training District Judge Pates from Crewe County Court has provided judges with a useful self calculating version of Precedent H and a self - calculating excel sheet to record agreed and approved budget phases during hearings (copies of both are attached below).

The role of the Lord Chancellor in appointing judges below the High Court will be transferred to the Lord Chief Justice.

Attorneys admitted by the Court of Appeals (and federal judges and clerks — see the Answer to the Question «Who is eligible to apply...» below) may separately apply for admission to the Bar Association.

Importance: In concluding that the court below had in personam jurisdiction over Google, Justice Groberman agreed with the chambers judge's conclusion that the active process of obtaining data that resides in the province or is the property of individuals in British Columbia was a key part of Google's business.

This later patent (No. 5,946,647 shown below) has just now been returned to the Samsung litigation based upon an order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which in an opinion last Friday (April 25, 2014) revived the patent by affirming a claim construction by Judge Richard A. Posner from a different case by Apple against Motorola — Judge Posner's claim construction contrasted with that of Judge Luch Koh in the Samsung litigation.

The Court of Appeal dismisses the appeal; finding the Trial Judge below did not speculate as to the cause of the fall, the Trial Judge did not misinterpret Sinow, and that both his findings of credibility and fact were well supported by the evidence.

(Note: The Court of Appeal referred to this payment as the «deposit», to signify that the word as used by the Trial Judge below was a misnomer (see at para. 6)-RRB-.

The North Carolina courts continue to be receptive to alienation of affections cases (see link below), with a Pitt County judge awarding $ 5.9 million to a jilted wife.

The Chambers Judge below notes J.E. sought to have the cause of his cognitive issues confirmed through civil proceedings; concludes as follows on the point: ``... this Court will never have jurisdiction in the context of this litigation to examine the various diagnoses and pronounce on the cause of Mr. JE's cognitive difficulties» (2015 ABQB 460 at para. 75)(quoted at para. 8 herein).

Other proposals include: appointing an independent layperson, instead of a judge, to head the selection panels for the lord chief justice and the president of the Supreme Court; transferring the lord chancellor's judicial appointment powers below either the High Court or the Court of Appeal to the lord chief justice; and restricting judicial appointment commission involvement in selecting judicial office holders who do not require a legal qualification.

However, the court went on to say it was «something of a reproach to the lawyers involved that neither party reminded either judge below» of the decision of the House of Lords in Caparo which is now the key authority.

Buxton LJ agreed, as did Sir Igor Judge, after paying tribute to counsel in the court below, that the application to the judge was «entirely justified» and referred to the judge's conduct of the hearing itself as evidence that he «had become too personally involved in the decision he was being asked to make to guarantee the necessary judicial objectivity required in the trustee proceedings&raJudge, after paying tribute to counsel in the court below, that the application to the judge was «entirely justified» and referred to the judge's conduct of the hearing itself as evidence that he «had become too personally involved in the decision he was being asked to make to guarantee the necessary judicial objectivity required in the trustee proceedings&rajudge was «entirely justified» and referred to the judge's conduct of the hearing itself as evidence that he «had become too personally involved in the decision he was being asked to make to guarantee the necessary judicial objectivity required in the trustee proceedings&rajudge's conduct of the hearing itself as evidence that he «had become too personally involved in the decision he was being asked to make to guarantee the necessary judicial objectivity required in the trustee proceedings».

The appellants also argue, as they did below, that the motion judge had no jurisdiction to bifurcate liability and damages, relying on Bondy - Raphael v. Potrebic and r. 6.1.01, which together provide that consent is required before a court can order separate hearings on issues of liability and damages.

You have the right to opt - out of this Agreement to Arbitrate (as explained below), which means that you would retain your right to litigate your disputes in a court, either before a judge or jury.