Sentences with phrase «judge putting the question to»

Not exact matches

In the end, though, Costa has not got away with it as the referee missed the incident in question when Costa appeared to elbow Arsenal's Laurent Koscielny in the face, meaning that the incident could be put before the FA's independent panel, which can use video footage to judge different incidents.

Westchester County DA Janet DiFiore, Gov. Andrew Cuomo's pick for chief judge of the Court of Appeals, will have her nomination put to a hearing today at the state Capitol, where the Republican - led Senate Judiciary Committee will have the opportunity to question her and examine her credentials before making a recommendation to the full Senate.

MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota (CNN)- Perhaps laying the groundwork for an appeal to a higher court, Republican Norm Coleman's attorneys are beginning to publicly question the three - judge panel presiding over his post-election legal battle, saying Wednesday that the judges are creating a «real problem» by not reconsidering their ruling from Friday that put a damper on much of Coleman's case over rejected absentee ballots.

S.J.Res.26 puts a simple question squarely before the Senate: Who shall make climate policy — lawmakers who must answer to the people at the ballot box or politically unaccountable bureaucrats, trial lawyers, and activist judges appointed for life?

An acquaintance put it perfectly: «Don't ask questions if you only plan to the judge the person on the choices they are making; if you have a «correct» answer in mind, and you only want to know if they are doing the «right» thing, keep your question to yourself.»

Failure to attribute sources and lack of originality, without more, do not assist in answering the ultimate question — whether a reasonable person would conclude from the copying that the judge did not put her mind to the issues to be decided, resulting in an unfair trial.

That sums up the complex legal questions put forward to the summary Judge Mr Floris Bakels in a case that may have severe consequences for the rights of Britons living on the continent.

[12] Accordingly the question was «whether a reasonable person would conclude that the alleged deficiency, taking into account all relevant circumstances, is evidence that the decision - making process was fundamentally unfair, in the sense that the judge did not put her mind to the facts, the arguments and the issues, and decide them impartially and independently.»

It would be for the judge to decide whether and how to put questions in relation to those matters.

This week on the legal - affairs podcast Lawyer2Lawyer, we put those questions to two distinguished members of the federal judiciary, Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf of the District of Nebraska, formerly author of the blog Hercules and the Umpire.

I take no pleasure, truly, for having accurately predicted the outcome in answer to a question put directly to me by District Judge Beresford at the Association of Costs Lawyers Manchester conference a month before.

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.»).

The question whether the defendant «has anything to say» is put by the judge after the evidentiary part of the hearing has concluded and after argument.

This is when experts for opposing parties give evidence in each other's presence and in front of the judge, who puts the same questions to each expert in turn, effectively acting as «chair» of a debate between the experts.

Judge Moir, they said, had regard to the need «that a usual component of a fair trial was for the person against whom allegations had been made to have the opportunity to put questions to or to cross-examine»; and to deny that was a very serious step.

My final question is this: If a judge is required to undertake the above - referenced analysis when an employee alleges that he or she should not be made to mitigate his damages by returning to a hostile, embarrassing or humiliating work environment (thus using the allegations as a «shield») why is it «unnecessary and undesirable to expand the court's involvement in such questions» when the employee puts forwards the allegations as a claim, thus using the allegations as a «sword?»

Unanticipated questions arise, new information comes to light or something is put into doubt — possibly while in front of a judge, with a client or in a meeting with the boss.

The Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prisoners» Advice Service (PAS) charities have both been given permission by senior judges to put forward a new case that questions the legality of the budgetary restrictions that were brought in by the Ministry of Justice.

These are the types of questions that may come up with a judge or opposing party, so it's better to be proactive than appear uninformed when the process is put under a microscope.

But when he starts reeling off statistics like how a particular judge tends to rule in certain types of cases, «they lean forward, put their elbows on the table, and start asking questions,» he says.

The rulings of the trial Judge should be made when questions are put or about to be put and should be confined to the propriety of the question or questions in issue.

And then questioned why the couples would continue to put themselves back in the limelight to expose their dark and vulnerable places within, that many would judge harshly.