Sentences with phrase «judge state applications»

Lisa Gross, a spokeswoman for state education department, said that is just one criterion the feds would use to judge state applications, and that lack of charters wouldn't necessarily mean Kentucky would be passed over for funding.

Not exact matches

Section 2 (1) of the Terrorism Act states that «where two or more persons associate for the purpose of, or where an organisation engages in: (a) participating or collaborating in an act of terrorism; (b) promoting, encouraging or exhorting others to commit an act of terrorism; or (c) setting up or pursuing acts of terrorism, the judge in chambers may on an application made by the Attorney General, National Security Adviser or Inspector General of Police on the approval of the President, declare any entity to be a proscribed organisation and the notice should be published in the official gazette».

«Applications for anonymous captions are made on an individual basis to the presiding judge on each case,» state court spokesman Lucian Chalfen said.

(4) The independent panel shall report as approved for each judicial position all highly qualified persons who make application to the panel, provided that if the number of highly qualified applicants exceeds three times the number of existing vacancies to be filled in such position (determined as of the time the panel renders its report), the independent panel shall report as approved the most highly qualified applicants in a number equal to three times the number of vacancies to be filled in such position, provided further that if the number of highly qualified applicants is less than three times the number of vacancies to be filled in such position the independent panel shall report as approved the most highly qualified applicants in a number equal to not less than two times the number of such vacancies, provided further that the following categories of applicants who are eligible for reelection or reappointment shall be reported as approved if their performance during their term of office merits continuation in office, and no other applicants shall be reported as approved for their vacancies: (a) a judge or justice completing a full term of office seeking re-election to that office, or (b) an interim Supreme Court justice who has been appointed by the Governor to fill an existing vacancy no later than the previous June 1 after approval of the Governor's screening panel, who has been confirmed by the State Senate and has assumed office no later than the date the panel renders its report, and who otherwise would not be required to make application to the independent screening panel pursuant to the provisions of sub-paragraph (3).

«In the light of recent publications in the media accusing one or many dating application services, I judged necessary to have a closer look at the state of our user base and to certify that it is exclusively using a registration submitted through «Facebook connect» and consequently can not be composed of any kind of fake profile created by the company itself, and to guarantee the proper functioning of the registration system on the Happn app.»

If a judge stated that foreigner was likely to go abroad, she / he had to stay in the centre until the authorities checked her / his application.

WASHINGTON — The Education Department's «peer review» system for judging grant applications is under attack again, this time because of allegations that a top department official sought special consideration for a teacher - education center at Michigan State University.

The run - up to the second - round application deadline, which was June 1, showcased the tension in many states between needing more buy - in from districts and teachers» unions and needing bold proposals for change that would impress Race to the Top judges.

Connecticut is in a tier of states eligible to receive up to $ 175 million if the judges deem their application worthy of an award.

Another place where Brill is critical is his description of the Race To The Top judging process which he describes as a farce with states winning by, essentially, cheating on their application while other states lost unfairly.

A Wake Superior Court judge subsequently disagreed with that decision, and ruled that the state board was within its rights to not act on the application.

Jones» order reversed an administrative judge's May decision to give the North Carolina Virtual Academy final approval after the State Board of Education didn't act on the school's application.

Wake Superior Court Judge Abraham Jones issued a ruling Friday that found the State Board of Education, the state entity that sets policy for the North Carolina's public schools, had been legally entitled to ignore an application from a virtual charter school seeking North Carolina taxpayer funds to teach students from their home compuState Board of Education, the state entity that sets policy for the North Carolina's public schools, had been legally entitled to ignore an application from a virtual charter school seeking North Carolina taxpayer funds to teach students from their home compustate entity that sets policy for the North Carolina's public schools, had been legally entitled to ignore an application from a virtual charter school seeking North Carolina taxpayer funds to teach students from their home computers.

Lawyers for the N.C. Justice Center, a statewide anti-poverty advocacy group that the N.C. Policy Watch is a project under, filed an amicus brief to encourage the judge to send the virtual charter school's application back to the state board.

You will be asked to state your reason during the application process but that will not be used to judge you.

To the fullest extent permitted by law, by your access to the Sites, you agree that: (i) any claim, dispute or cause of action regarding the Sites or these Terms shall be brought individually (NOT AS PART OF A CLASS ACTION) in the federal or state courts of the State of New York, and, such claim / dispute / cause of action will be resolved by a judge and THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL IS HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVED; (ii) you consent to the personal jurisdiction of such courts as the exclusive tribunal for adjudication of any such claim / dispute / cause of action, expressly waiving any right of forum non convenience, change of venue or like right; (iii) your recovery will be limited to actual out - of - pocket costs involved in specifically accessing the Sites (if any) and you expressly waive your right to all other forms of recovery, including by way of example only, punitive, consequential, indirect, incidental, special and exemplary damages as well as attorneys» fees for bringing such claim / dispute / cause of action; and (iv) the court shall apply the law of the State of New York in adjudicating any such claim / dispute / cause of action, except for the choice of law / conflict of law rules of the State of New York (or of any other jurisdiction which would result in the application of the law of any jurisdiction other than the State of New Ystate courts of the State of New York, and, such claim / dispute / cause of action will be resolved by a judge and THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL IS HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVED; (ii) you consent to the personal jurisdiction of such courts as the exclusive tribunal for adjudication of any such claim / dispute / cause of action, expressly waiving any right of forum non convenience, change of venue or like right; (iii) your recovery will be limited to actual out - of - pocket costs involved in specifically accessing the Sites (if any) and you expressly waive your right to all other forms of recovery, including by way of example only, punitive, consequential, indirect, incidental, special and exemplary damages as well as attorneys» fees for bringing such claim / dispute / cause of action; and (iv) the court shall apply the law of the State of New York in adjudicating any such claim / dispute / cause of action, except for the choice of law / conflict of law rules of the State of New York (or of any other jurisdiction which would result in the application of the law of any jurisdiction other than the State of New YState of New York, and, such claim / dispute / cause of action will be resolved by a judge and THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL IS HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVED; (ii) you consent to the personal jurisdiction of such courts as the exclusive tribunal for adjudication of any such claim / dispute / cause of action, expressly waiving any right of forum non convenience, change of venue or like right; (iii) your recovery will be limited to actual out - of - pocket costs involved in specifically accessing the Sites (if any) and you expressly waive your right to all other forms of recovery, including by way of example only, punitive, consequential, indirect, incidental, special and exemplary damages as well as attorneys» fees for bringing such claim / dispute / cause of action; and (iv) the court shall apply the law of the State of New York in adjudicating any such claim / dispute / cause of action, except for the choice of law / conflict of law rules of the State of New York (or of any other jurisdiction which would result in the application of the law of any jurisdiction other than the State of New YState of New York in adjudicating any such claim / dispute / cause of action, except for the choice of law / conflict of law rules of the State of New York (or of any other jurisdiction which would result in the application of the law of any jurisdiction other than the State of New YState of New York (or of any other jurisdiction which would result in the application of the law of any jurisdiction other than the State of New YState of New York).

Judge Hovland expressed skepticism that the DEA would ever act on the applications, based on the fact that an application by North Dakota State University was still pending after more than eight years.

Interestingly, the court stated that just because a claim for litigation privilege fails in a document production application the party is free to raise the claim again at trial and the trial judge will need to consider whether the documents can stay out of evidence for grounds privilege.

The Crown appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in his consideration and application of s. 150.1 (4) of the Criminal Code, which states that it is not a defence for an accused to say they believed a complainant was 16 years of age or older when the sexual acts occurred.

This argument was not permitted by the court as it had not been raised in the case stated prepared by the district judge and no application had been made by the appellant to amend that document.

Although the Court of Appeal did not find that Judge Lenehan had erred in law by stating that «a drunk can consent», his application of the legal test for a person's capacity to consent to sexual activity was a legal error.

His application to practice law in the state was turned down by a California State Bar admission committee in 2009, then overturned by a State Bar court judge, then over-overturned by an internal State Bar appellate court in 2011, and soon the California Supreme Court will weigh in with the final state was turned down by a California State Bar admission committee in 2009, then overturned by a State Bar court judge, then over-overturned by an internal State Bar appellate court in 2011, and soon the California Supreme Court will weigh in with the final State Bar admission committee in 2009, then overturned by a State Bar court judge, then over-overturned by an internal State Bar appellate court in 2011, and soon the California Supreme Court will weigh in with the final State Bar court judge, then over-overturned by an internal State Bar appellate court in 2011, and soon the California Supreme Court will weigh in with the final State Bar appellate court in 2011, and soon the California Supreme Court will weigh in with the final word.

No evidence was provided to the court and the submission was rejected the judge stating that it «must have been obvious to the defendant long before» the date of application.

On 10 January 2007, District Judge Cooke dismissed the trustees» application stating that the circumstances of the case did not fall within IA 1986, s 339.

Four candidates — two lawyers and two federal judges — have received high marks from the Virginia State Bar in their applications for an Alexandria federal judgeship.

And it has come under more recent scrutiny in an application involving Apple, Inc. before Magistrate Judge James Orenstein of the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, in In Re Order Requiring Apple, Inc..

The judge hearing the application dismissed it on the basis that, among other things, s. 52 of the MA Act conflicted with the terms of the RTA by virtue of the fact that the RTA states that a tenancy may by «terminated only in accordance with this Act.»

In my last post titled Apple And The «All Writs Act» dated November 2, 2015, I discussed an application before Magistrate Judge James Orenstein of the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, in In Re Order Requiring...

In my last post titled Apple And The «All Writs Act» dated November 2, 2015, I discussed an application before Magistrate Judge James Orenstein of the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, in In Re Order Requiring Apple, Inc..

On June 18, 2012, Governor John Lynch of New Hampshire signed into law HB 146, a bill granting to juries in that state the right «to judge the application of the law in relationship to the facts in controversy.»

Associate Judge Fisher, writing for the Court, stated, «the ability to focus on the reliability of principles and methods, and their application, is a decided advantage that will lead to better decision - making by juries and trial judges alike.»

The application judge stated that irrespective of this fact, the franchisor was entitled to protect the integrity of the franchise system overall.

As a judge, I shared one law clerk with another judge, and that clerk's primary responsibilities involved drafting proposed orders, reviewing motions, and researching the effects of various criminal convictions from various states on different grounds of removability, largely freeing me and my fellow judge to review applications for relief and the supporting evidence for those applications.

As an aside, on granting permission to appeal (as an application for permission to appeal had to be issued as the Judge had rejected the oral application for permission to appeal at the original hearing), the Court of Appeal had recognised that it was unusual for an exercise of judicial discretion to be appealed but stated that the decision of His Honour Judge Purle QC was highly speculative as to «border on the Micawberism» (which those of you versed in classic literature will recognise as a reference to a character in the Charles Dickens novel, David Copperfield, who continually holds blind faith that «something will turn up»).

Sally has provided technical assistance, trainings, and facilitation to groups on local, state, and national levels and has co-authored a number of publications including The U Visa: Obtaining Status for Immigrant Victims of Crime (ILRC), The VAWA Manual: Immigration Relief for Abused Immigrants (ILRC), Immigration Benchbook for Juvenile and Family Court Judges (ILRC), and Application of Protection Remedies for Victims of Domestic Abuse, Human Trafficking, and Crime under U.S. Law to Persons Physically Present in the U.S. Territories (Family Violence Prevention Fund).

Moreover, the Court stated the Application Judge ``... could reasonably conclude that the Creek was wide enough and deep enough to allow a person to travel by boat along the Creek over at least part of the respondents» property» (see para. 26)[Emphasis added].

Thus, while the application of the wrong test for causation was an error of law, the error stemmed from the trial judge's failure to appreciate that the expert witnesses were unable to state that causation was established on a balance of probabilities.

The judge consented to Gillan's application to state a case as the law was unclear.

If the other parent refuses to sign then a judge can give you a court order for permission to sign the passport application alone and / or give you a court order stating that you may travel with the child without the other parent's authorization.

In a December 2011 presentation to the Conference of State Court Administrators, Judge Kevin Burke presented an overview of procedural fairness and its practical applications.

(paras. 1, 2 - 7) In January 2017, Judge Danièle Tremblay - Lamer dismissed the application, stating that «[t] he role of the Court is not to pass moral judgment on the Minister's decision to issue the export permits but only to make sure of the legality of such a decision».

Pursuant to the statute, the FISC consists of eleven Article III district court judges, selected by the Chief Justice of the United States.13 All applications are considered by a single judge and can not be reheard by another judge of the FISC except when the court sits en banc.14 FISA provides for both en banc consideration and appeals to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (Court of Review).

In May 2006, the district judge acceded to that application, and sent the case to the Secretary of State for his decision as to whether or not the appellant should be extradited.

Judge Meeran's announcement follows the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling in Johns v Solent SD Ltd, that the claim should be deferred pending the outcome of the Heyday case: R (on the application of Incorporated Trustees of the National Council on Aging) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (see this issue p 1651).

That requires the application of the national standards of electronic records management by which to judge the state of ERMS management.

This was immediately rebutted by the judge by stating that he had made no application but had been invited to join AG.

In my posts titled Apple And The «All Writs Act» dated November 2, 2015, and Apple and «Assistance Orders» in Canada dated November 8, 2015, I discussed an application before Magistrate Judge James Orenstein of the United States District Court,...

In a brief endorsement, the application judge stated, without elaborating, that: (a) Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario («Ontario») was not a proper party to the application; (b) the Superior Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to make the order sought; and (c) the appellant failed to prove his true date of birth, given his inconsistent statements.