Sentences with phrase «judgment against such»
They were reimbursed by, or on behalf of, a person responsible for the accident or has judgment against such person.
https://www.autoinsuresavings.org/ Not exact matches
If you have a good VantageScore ®, you're likely to have a good FICO ® Score, because both consider the same factors: Payment history: your record of on - time payments and any «derogatory» marks, such as late payments, accounts sent to collections or judgments against you.
2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth.
One root of the idea of a «presumption against war» was thus this kind of judgment against modern war as such.
Such was the icy response of John Bennett to a young Lutheran theologian defending Luther's two kingdoms doctrine against the negative judgments of Ernst Troeltsch and Reinhold Niebuhr.
«It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, «Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.»
Every judgment of conscience, be it right or wrong, be it about things evil in themselves or morally indifferent, is obligatory, in such wise that he who acts against his conscience always sins.
2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things.
While the Church makes no judgment about the inner state of the heretic, and while good is brought out of the evil of dissensionand heresy through the formulation and definition of dogmas, the idea that heretics such as Valentinius, Arius and Nestorius were right to reject the decisions of councils and popes against them, and that their dissent was in fact nearer to the truth is unacceptable from a Catholic perspective.
The handlers of the late President Mills are reaping what they made him sow against his better judgment so the likes of Koku Anyidoho and his other such handlers should shut up!
You shall indemnify The Endocrine Society and its directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors and licensors («The Endocrine Society Indemnitees») against all claims, actions, suits, and other proceedings («Claims») arising out of or incurred in connection with the Site and your use of the Site, your fraud, violation of law, negligence, willful misconduct, or any other use of the Site, the User Materials, the Site Materials, the services, products, information and other materials on and in and made available through the Site, (except to the extent attributable to The Endocrine Society), or any breach by you of these Terms and Conditions and shall indemnify and hold the Endocrine Society Indemnitees harmless from and against all judgments, losses, liabilities, damages, costs, and expenses (including without limitation reasonable attorneys» fees and attorneys» disbursements) arising out of or incurred in connection with such Claims.
A physician must also use clinical judgment to rule out other conditions and weigh symptoms (such as fatigue and insomnia) against other variables (such as pain in several tender points, but not enough to meet the criteria).
But just at the time when public universities seem to be taking more precautions against such knowledge (read: moral judgments) creeping into their curricula, evangelical high schools are being more aggressive in practicing what Carney refers to as the «integration of faith and learning.»
(a) Whenever the Attorney General receives a complaint in writing signed by an individual to the effect that he is being deprived of or threatened with the loss of his right to the equal protection of the laws, on account of his race, color, religion, or national origin, by being denied equal utilization of any public facility which is owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of any State or subdivision thereof, other than a public school or public college as defined in section 401 of title IV hereof, and the Attorney General believes the complaint is meritorious and certifies that the signer or signers of such complaint are unable, in his judgment, to initiate and maintain appropriate legal proceedings for relief and that the institution of an action will materially further the orderly progress of desegregation in public facilities, the Attorney General is authorized to institute for or in the name of the United States a civil action in any appropriate district court of the United States against such parties and for such relief as may be appropriate, and such court shall have and shall exercise jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this section.
(2) signed by an individual, or his parent, to the effect that he has been denied admission to or not permitted to continue in attendance at a public college by reason of race, color, religion, or national origin, and the Attorney General believes the complaint is meritorious and certifies that the signer or signers of such complaint are unable, in his judgment, to initiate and maintain appropriate legal proceedings for relief and that the institution of an action will materially further the orderly achievement of desegregation in public education, the Attorney General is authorized, after giving notice of such complaint to the appropriate school board or college authority and after certifying that he is satisfied that such board or authority has had a reasonable time to adjust the conditions alleged in such complaint, to institute for or in the name of the United States a civil action in any appropriate district court of the United States against such parties and for such relief as may be appropriate, and such court shall have and shall exercise jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this section, provided that nothing herein shall empower any official or court of the United States to issue any order seeking to achieve a racial balance in any school by requiring the transportation of pupils or students from one school to another or one school district to another in order to achieve such racial balance, or otherwise enlarge the existing power of the court to insure compliance with constitutional standards.
They often seek a judgment to place a lien against personal property such as your home, or wages.
If you have a good VantageScore ®, you're likely to have a good FICO ® Score, because both consider the same factors: Payment history: your record of on - time payments and any «derogatory» marks, such as late payments, accounts sent to collections or judgments against you.
For instance, if a creditor such as a credit - card company obtains a judgment against you they can garnish approximate 25 percent of your wages.
A lien allows the creditor who has obtained a judgment against a debtor to have a judgment attached to the debtor's assets, such as real estate.
If a judgment against you exceeds the liability limits of an underlying policy, such as auto or homeowners insurance, a personal umbrella policy may help provide an additional layer of coverage.
A deed which conveys not only all the grantor's interests in and title to the property to the grantee, but also warrants that if the title is defective or has a «cloud» on it (such as mortgage claims, tax liens, title claims, judgments, or mechanic's liens against it) the grantee may hold the grantor liable.
(1) the amount of the debt; (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; (3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector; (4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty - day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and (5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty - day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.
a) Disputes filed - 18 months b) Inquiries - 2 years c) Payment profile -5 years d) Information related to a consumers payment behavior such as slow payer, defaulted or absconded - 1 year e) Information relating to the action that a credit provider has taken against a consumer to enforce a debt such as handed over, legal action or write - off - 2 years f) Debt restructuring - Until a clearance certificate is given g) Civil court judgments - 5 years or until the court removes it h) Administration orders (orders to put a consumer under administration)- 10 years or until the court removes it i) Sequestrations (order given by the court where the consumer is insolvent)- 10 years or until the court removes it j) Liquidations (order given by the court where the consumer is insolvent)- no time limit k) Court order removing a liquidation or sequestrations after all the debt was paid - 5 years l) Other information (information not covered above)- 2 years Other Useful Topics Learn how to dispute information on your credit report in South Africa.
If you own property and fall into arrears with an unsecured creditor, such as a credit card or line of credit, that creditor has the option to obtain a judgment from court and register a writ against your property.
Article VIII of Registrant's Amended and Restated Agreement and Declaration of Trust (Exhibit (a) hereto, which is incorporated by reference) provides in effect that Registrant will indemnify its officers and trustees against all liabilities and expenses, including but not limited to amounts paid in satisfaction of judgments, in compromise, or as fines and penalties, and counsel fees reasonably incurred by any such officer or trustee in connection with the defense or disposition of any action, suit, or other proceeding.
Your credit report contains personal information such as your name, home address, employer and any financial judgments against you.
A conspicuous statement that if the person fails to pay the civil penalty within the time allowed, or fails to appear in court to contest the citation, the person shall be deemed to have waived his or her right to contest the citation and that, in such case, judgment may be entered against the person for an amount up to the maximum civil penalty.
The cardholder agrees that s / he will defend and indemnify the Priority Pass group of companies, its directors, officers, employees and agents (collectively «the indemnified parties») against and hold each indemnified party harmless from all liabilities, damages, losses, claims, suits, judgments, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal fees) for injury to or death of any person or damage to, or destruction of, any property arising from the use of any lounge by the cardholder or any other person accompanying the cardholder, except that such indemnification shall not extend to acts of gross negligence or wilful misconduct by the indemnified parties.
Policymakers must do cost / benefit analysis, taking into account tradeoffs, such as balancing risks from climate change against those from poverty, and as Hans von Storch points out, «judgments of the value of costs versus benefits is [sic] a highly subjective, value - laden calculation.»
The judgment takes effect from the day when it is given or made, or such later date as the court may specify (FPR 2010, r 29.15); and an appeal is against that judgment, not the order.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission wouldn't proceed with a similar complaints against the magazine (neither would the Canadian Human Rights Commission), but in an odd twist, while the Ontario commission's press release said it wasn't within its jurisdiction to deal with the contents of magazine articles, it cast judgment anyway, saying it «strongly condemns the Islamophobic portrayal of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and indeed any racialized community in the media, such as the Maclean's article and others like them, as being inconsistent
MIC sought to enforce this judgment debt against Naftogaz's assets in England by obtaining (i) a freezing order against Naftogaz in relation to its shares in a UK oil company; (ii) a default judgment against Naftogaz in the sum of such debt («English Default Judgment»); and (iii) a third party debt order requiring share dividends due to Naftogaz to be paid instead to MIC and also a charging order in favour of MIC in respect of such shares.
As such, the Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's holding that an Ontario court has the jurisdiction to enforce the Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron and Chevron Canada.
Except in cases affecting the personal status of the plaintiff, and cases in which that mode of service may be considered to have been assented to in advance, as hereinafter mentioned, the substituted service of process by publication, allowed by the law of Oregon and by similar laws in other States, where actions are brought against non-residents, is effectual only where, in connection with process against the person for commencing the action, property in the State is brought under the control of the court, and subjected to its disposition by process adapted to that purpose, or where the judgment is sought as a means of reaching such property or affecting some interest therein; in other words, where the action is in the nature of a proceeding in rem.
In practice, one reason that the business is actually unlikely to sue you in this situation (unless they discovered that more than $ 50,000 was taken) is that having lost your job and paid them $ 50,000 you may not be able to pay even a large judgment if it was awarded against you (although such a judgment, if entered, would probably not be dischargeable in bankruptcy under U.S. law).
As is typical of most business prosecutions over the past several years that criminalize questionable business judgment rather than clear white collar criminal acts such as embezzlement, the case against Collins was a jumble of conclusory allegations of fraud without any specific allegations of what Collins did that was criminal.
It followed, in the Privy Council's judgment, that requirements that an implied term must «go without saying» or be «necessary to give business efficacy» are not «different or additional tests»: rather, «in every case in which it is said that some provision ought to be implied in an instrument, the question is whether such a provision would spell out in express words what the instrument, read as a whole against the relevant background, would reasonably be understood to mean».
In a recent judgment, Justice Lynne Smith of the British Columbia Supreme Court identified grounds upon which to reopen the question of the constitutionality of the criminal prohibition against physician - assisted dying, claiming, in effect, that while the Supreme Court had at the time of the Rodriguez been correct in stating that a blanket prohibition on physician - assisted dying would be rationally connected to the goal of protecting the most vulnerable people in Canadian society, such a prohibition is overbroad (you don't need to deny everyone the right to physician - assisted suicide in order to protect society's most vulnerable persons) and grossly disproportionate in its effects.
By Article 25, each party state undertakes to recognise such judgments in other party states with the exception of judgments made against the government of the requested party or its employees in respect of acts taken on its behalf, as well as judgments where recognition or enforcement would be inconsistent with its international treaties.
The amendments also eliminated the presumption of substantial indemnity costs against a party that brings an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment, in order to avoid deterring parties from bringing such motions.
However, the court would review the following four issues if challenged by the respondent: (1) whether the foreign court lacks jurisdiction pursuant to Taiwanese laws; (2) whether a default judgment is rendered against the losing defendant, but the notice or summons of the initiation of action had been legally served in a reasonable time in the foreign country or had been served through judicial assistance provided under the Taiwanese laws; (3) whether the performance ordered by such judgment or its litigation procedure is against Taiwanese public policy or morals; and (4) whether there exists no mutual recognition between the foreign country and Taiwan.
Ignoring such claims, no matter how frivolous, poses the risk that a judgment will be entered by default against the foreign state and its officials.
For example, a judgment in rem against an asset outside of England and Wales can not be enforced for the reason that the assets fall outside of the jurisdiction of the English court; however, a party may seek recognition of that judgment for several reasons, such as defending claims within England or relying on the findings of the foreign judgment in other proceedings (res judicata).
the person against whom the judgment was given submitted to the jurisdiction of that court by voluntarily appearing in the proceedings (which will not include submitting arguments on the merits where under local law, a challenge to jurisdiction can only be brought in conjunction with such arguments on the merits); or
The Court nevertheless distinguished such bailment agreement from a lease or construction contract, did not apply the defence of «tort immunity» pursuant to insurance covenants in that context, and (after reserving for approximately two years) granted judgment against the operator: Kruger Products Limited v. First Choice Logistics Inc., 2010 BCSC 1242 (CanLII).
Other cases include successful judgments in leading personal injury decisions, such as Monks v. ING and Gardiner v. MacDonald, successful defence of liability waiver in Isildar v. Kanata Dive Supply, as well as a number of claims (including constitutional challenges) against the federal government.
Set against the ECJ's judgments in cases such as Lankhorst this is a curious statement and it seems that it is doing little more than restating the principle it had only just rebuffed in a slightly more sophisticated and targeted way.
It is useful to quote key observations by Stadlen J [at paras 126 - 129]: «In my view, notwithstanding the absence in the FTPP proceedings of some of the statutory and non-statutory safeguards which apply to criminal proceedings... [I] n deciding whether it would be fair to admit the hearsay evidence, the requirements both of Article 6 and of the common law obliged the FTPP to take into account the absence of all those [safeguards]... [I] n my judgment, no reasonable panel in the position of the FTPP could have reasonably concluded that there were factors outweighing the powerful factors pointing against the admission of the hearsay evidence... The means by which the claimant can challenge the hearsay evidence are... not in my judgment capable of outweighing those factors... The reality would appear to be that the factor which the FTPP considered decisive in favour of admitting the hearsay evidence was the serious nature of the allegations against the claimant coupled with the public interest in investigating such allegations and the FTPP's duty to protect the public interest in protecting patients, maintaining public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of behaviour... However, that factor on its own does not in my view diminish the weight which must be attached to the procedural safeguards to which a person accused of such allegations is entitled both at common law and under Article 6... The more serious the allegation, the greater the importance of ensuring that the accused doctor is afforded fair and proper procedural safeguards.
More particularly, since the Court acknowledged in the judgment in Tsakouridis, that the fight against trafficking in narcotics as part of an organised group is capable of being covered by that concept, the question here is whether an act carried out alone, such as that committed by Mr I. in the main proceedings, namely sexual abuse of a 14 year old minor, sexual coercion and rape, is also capable of being covered by that concept.
The rule waives the requirement for individual agreement if the victim is unable to agree due to incapacity or other emergency circumstance and: (1) The law enforcement official represents that the protected health information is needed to determine whether a violation of law by a person other than the victim has occurred and the information is not intended to be used against the victim; (2) the law enforcement official represents that immediate law enforcement activity that depends on such disclosure would be materially and adversely affected by waiting until the individual is able to agree to the disclosure; and (3) the covered entity, in the exercise of professional judgment, determines that the disclosure is in the individual's best interests.