Sentences with phrase «judgment rule in the state»

His other case experience includes the trial and appeal of dissolution and shareholder derivative actions which established the scope of the business judgment rule in the state of Connecticut and a murder case that was a case study on the issue of time of death in Dr. Henry Lee's book Cracking Cases: The Science of Solving Crime.

Not exact matches

In stating in summary fashion the Christian conception of the Kingdom of God we are not pretending that we can see perfectly what this means, nor are we saying that we can arrive at a formal principle which can act as a rule by which all Christian value judgments can be simply madIn stating in summary fashion the Christian conception of the Kingdom of God we are not pretending that we can see perfectly what this means, nor are we saying that we can arrive at a formal principle which can act as a rule by which all Christian value judgments can be simply madin summary fashion the Christian conception of the Kingdom of God we are not pretending that we can see perfectly what this means, nor are we saying that we can arrive at a formal principle which can act as a rule by which all Christian value judgments can be simply made.

Sober, industrious and otherwise well - adjusted men have been known to fall into gargling, sputtering rages as, sitting helplessly before their TV sets, they feel themselves assaulted by Allen's tedious, drawn - out explanations («For the benefit of those not so familiar with the game, the infield fly rule states that, with first and second base or first, second and third occupied and less than two out, a ball which in the judgment of the umpire,» etc..

The Alaska State Medical Board ruled that Rosi «committed a serious error in judgment» by failing to immediately hospitalize Jacob Stednick, a newborn who had breathed in his own waste in an Alaska home birth.

In his written judgment, Mr Justice Hickinbottom stated: «At the time each of the claimants joined the party, it was the common understanding as reflected in the rule book that, if they joined the party prior to the election process commencing, as new members they would be entitled to vote in any leadership contesIn his written judgment, Mr Justice Hickinbottom stated: «At the time each of the claimants joined the party, it was the common understanding as reflected in the rule book that, if they joined the party prior to the election process commencing, as new members they would be entitled to vote in any leadership contesin the rule book that, if they joined the party prior to the election process commencing, as new members they would be entitled to vote in any leadership contesin any leadership contest.

«We strongly belief that President Buhari, must be seen to be acting contrary to court decisions on the use of Military during elections as clearly stated in the rulings of Justice Aikawa of the Federal High Court, who in his judgment, restrained the President and Commander - in - Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and INEC from engaging the service of the Nigerian armed forces in the security supervision of elections in any manner whatsoever in any part of Nigeria, without the Act of the National Assembly.

He stated that two of the grounds of the appeal against the Court of Appeal's judgment in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, were on the ruling that the tenure of three national officers would expire by August while that of 18 others would end in July 2018.

In a statement in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Mr Omotowa described the judgment as a victory for Nigeria and the rule of law, adding that the court decision was a rejection of what he called arbitrariness and illegalitIn a statement in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Mr Omotowa described the judgment as a victory for Nigeria and the rule of law, adding that the court decision was a rejection of what he called arbitrariness and illegalitin Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Mr Omotowa described the judgment as a victory for Nigeria and the rule of law, adding that the court decision was a rejection of what he called arbitrariness and illegality.

Oyegun had while reacting to the ruling of the Court of Appeal judgment on Rivers State governorship petition boasted that, «I am more confident of winning Akwa - Ibom than any other state in the South - South... we are going to win; that is almost a certainty,» this comment, the PDP said is «not only careless but also smacks of impunity and arrogance that have characterized the current government.&rState governorship petition boasted that, «I am more confident of winning Akwa - Ibom than any other state in the South - South... we are going to win; that is almost a certainty,» this comment, the PDP said is «not only careless but also smacks of impunity and arrogance that have characterized the current government.&rstate in the South - South... we are going to win; that is almost a certainty,» this comment, the PDP said is «not only careless but also smacks of impunity and arrogance that have characterized the current government.»

It read, «The Court of Appeal Benin City sat in judgment, 5th July 2017, over a pending appeal challenging the ruling of Federal High Court, Warri which vacated the APC Delta State Exco led by Prophet Jones Ode Erue, and also authorised a repeat Congress.

«It is to be expected that Japan will take account of the reasoning and conclusions contained in this judgment as it evaluates the possibility of granting any future permits» for research whaling, the ruling stated.

For any matters which are not subject to arbitration as set forth in these Official Rules and / or in connection with the entering of any judgment on an arbitration award in connection with these Official Rules and / or the Contest, the parties irrevocably submit and consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the state and federal courts located in or closest to the County of New York in the State of New state and federal courts located in or closest to the County of New York in the State of New State of New York.

However, because people do not always use good judgment in life a ruling by the state of California mandated Aloe companies, including Aloe Life, list a warning on all products that states: If diarrhea results reduce the daily amount.

The administration has also revoked rules and guidance dealing with other issues, including Obama - era protections for transgender students, and it is in the process of reviewing guidance aimed at preventing discriminatory school discipline on which, in testimony before Congress, DeVos said she would «defer to the judgment of state and local officials.»

Ruling / Rationale: The Nevada Supreme Court, therefore, affirmed in part and reversed in part the lower court's order in Duncan v. State of Nevada, dismissing the suit and remanding the case to the state district court to enter a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of section 16 of SB 302 in the absence of an appropriation consistent with the supreme court's opiState of Nevada, dismissing the suit and remanding the case to the state district court to enter a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of section 16 of SB 302 in the absence of an appropriation consistent with the supreme court's opistate district court to enter a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of section 16 of SB 302 in the absence of an appropriation consistent with the supreme court's opinion.

A judgment results from a ruling by a court in favor of your creditor, which states that you must pay the specified amount of money.

In an interesting judgment, the CJEU has ruled that Regulation 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport applies outside of EU borders to transport taking place in third states, if that transport began on EU territorIn an interesting judgment, the CJEU has ruled that Regulation 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport applies outside of EU borders to transport taking place in third states, if that transport began on EU territorin third states, if that transport began on EU territory.

In the VALE judgment the Court refers to its earlier SEVIC judgment (C - 411 / 03) where it ruled that company transformation operations respond to the needs for cooperation and consolidation between companies established in different Member StateIn the VALE judgment the Court refers to its earlier SEVIC judgment (C - 411 / 03) where it ruled that company transformation operations respond to the needs for cooperation and consolidation between companies established in different Member Statein different Member States.

In its Taricco I judgment (analysed previously by M. Lassalle on this blog), the ECJ decided that national courts must disapply the rules of statutes of limitations periods for the duration of criminal proceedings pending before a court, if such rules were liable to have an adverse effect on fulfilling by the Member States their obligations under Article 325 TFEU.

Unlike other areas of law, each member state of the EU keeps its own family law and can decide its own terms: While the EU provides a common set of rules for jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments and orders, Britain has three systems of substantive law in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland with each system operating almost independently.

Lord Mance's judgment considers there to be three types of foreign state aid rule: one of private international law; one precluding domestic courts from questioning the validity of a foreign state's sovereign act in respect of property in its jurisdiction; and domestic courts will treat some categories of sovereign act by a foreign state as non-justiciable.

Put shortly, as Lady Hale and Lord Carnwath in their joint judgment in MM (Lebanon) and Others state, new rules required a sponsoring partner (rather than the applicant and partner jointly, and certainly without any assistance from family members) to have a gross annual income of at least # 18,600, with an additional # 3,800 for the first non-settled dependent child, and # 2,400 for each further child.

That the Court is keen to avoid such a conclusion is clear from the argument brought forth in the statement of the Court in paragraphs 46 and 47 of the judgment, where the Court finds that its decision to rule for the non-applicability of the Visa Code does not run contrary to the distinct requirement of the Visa Code to refuse a visa in case there are doubts with regard to the applicant's intention to leave the territory of the Member State after the expiry of the visa — a refusal that would be taken as a result of the application of the Visa Code, not as a result of its non-applicability.

The article also should have reported that the state court ruling that resulted in a $ 1.1 billion judgment against lead - paint manufacturers occurred in 2013.

A spokesman for ENRC stated: «We are very surprised by this ruling and we will appeal today's decision because the effect of this judgment is that a party who wishes to consult a lawyer in relation to an SFO dawn raid or criminal investigation is not entitled to the protections afforded by litigation privilege.»

Mr. Justice Branca, speaking for himself, but without any dissent from the other two members of the Court, said in reference to Smith: Cusack, J., in his judgment for the Court stated that the general rule of practice in criminal cases in England is that the accused person gives evidence before the witnesses whom he proposes to call to testify.

Investor - state arbitration clauses in investment treaties between EU Member States are incompatible with EU law, the European Court of Justice has ruled in a landmark judgment.

As stated in Briggs and Rees Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (2005) 4th edition at paras 2.02 to 2.07 & 2.105: (i) The fundamental rule was that if a case fell within the Brussels Regulation, the Regulation alone allocated jurisdiction over the defendant; (ii) There were three overriding principles of interpretation: (i) the wording of the regulation should so far as possible be given a meaning which was common and uniform across the various member states; (ii) provisions which allowed a defendant to be sued against his will in a member state other than his domicile were to be construed narrowly; (iii) the risk of inconsistent decisions should be kept to a minimum.

Speaking at GCR Live London, Kassie Smith QC of Monckton Chambers said there was a need for certainty about whether English judgments would still be enforceable in the rest of Europe once Brussels» «Recast» rules, which ensure judgments between EU members states are recognised and enforced, fall away after Brexit.

The Supreme Court of the State of California recently released an opinion in which they affirmed a lower court's ruling granting summary judgment to the defendant in a wrongful death lawsuit.

Consequently, neither individuals nor the Member States could make use of them in Luxembourg when challenging EU secondary measures, and also Member State courts were barred from applying these rules directly in their judgments (Case C - 377 / 02 Van Parys [2005] ECR I - 01465).

The aims of the Brussels I (recast) are to provide unified rules on conflicts of jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters and to ensure the rapid recognition and enforcement of judgments given in member states (recital 4).

The guiding principles state that judgments in the Family Division should be publicised unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary; children and incapacitated and vulnerable adults should not be identified unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary; and anonymity should not go beyond this unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary (Administration of Justice Act 1960, s 12; the Children Act 1989, s 103, Sch 13; and the Family Proceedings Rules 2010, r 27.

I'm not familiar with the U.K.'s professional ethics rules, but here in the United States, I have difficulty figuring out how firms can accept outside investors without compromising their independent judgment or running into conflicts of interest.

A district court ruling upheld the canons, granting summary judgment in favor of the Arizona state officials.

2 Sept. 25, 2014)(unpublished) is a real imbroglio involving bankruptcy adversary and state court proceedings in which vexatious litigant orders and fee recovery orders were entered, eventually with an attorney for a vexatious litigant being added as a judgment debtor for purposes of certain vexatious litigant sanctions rulings.

The Court, whose judgments are binding on African States, decided in favor of Mr. Konaté, ruling that his imprisonment for defamation violated the right to freedom of expression in Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples» Rights, ordering Burkina Faso to revise its law to be consistent with the Charter and to pay compensation to Mr. Konaté.

92 JoEllen Lind, supra note 89, at 769 — 70 (citing 11 states rejecting all or part of the summary judgment standard articulated by the United States Supreme Court under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 56, and noting that differing state and federal summary judgment standards «make it much more likely that a defendant in federal court will obtain summary judgment than a defendant in state court»); J. Palmer Lockard, Summary Judgment in Pennsylvania: Time for Another Look at Credibility, 3states rejecting all or part of the summary judgment standard articulated by the United States Supreme Court under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 56, and noting that differing state and federal summary judgment standards «make it much more likely that a defendant in federal court will obtain summary judgment than a defendant in state court»); J. Palmer Lockard, Summary Judgment in Pennsylvania: Time for Another Look at Credibility, 3States Supreme Court under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 56, and noting that differing state and federal summary judgment standards «make it much more likely that a defendant in federal court will obtain summary judgment than a defendant in state court»); J. Palmer Lockard, Summary Judgment in Pennsylvania: Time for Another Look at Credibility, 35 Duq.

Member States, institutions of the Communities and any other natural or legal persons may, in cases and under conditions to be determined by the Rules of Procedure, institute third - party proceedings to contest a judgment rendered without their being heard, where the judgment is prejudicial to their rights.

(a) any court or tribunal of that State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law may request the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on a question raised in a case pending before it and concerning the validity or interpretation of an act referred to in paragraph 1 if that court or tribunal considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment; or

Judgments handed down in any of the Nordic States which have made the declaration provided for in subparagraph (a) under a forum of jurisdiction corresponding to one of those laid down in Chapter II of this Regulation, shall be recognised and enforced in the other Member States under the rules laid down in Chapter III of this Regulation.

Judgments given before the date of application of this Regulation but after the date of entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 in proceedings instituted before the date of entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 shall be recognised and enforced in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III of this Regulation provided they relate to divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment or parental responsibility for the children of both spouses on the occasion of these matrimonial proceedings and that jurisdiction was founded on rules which accorded with those provided for either in Chapter II of this Regulation or in Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 or in a convention concluded between the Member State of origin and the Member State addressed which was in force when the proceedings were instituted.

Authentic instruments and agreements between parties that are enforceable in one Member State should be treated as equivalent to «judgments» for the purpose of the application of the rules on recognition and enforcement.

a) that ruling is inconsistent with a judgment or a decision of a competent authority on that matter given in the State under the law of which the intellectual property right arose; or b) proceedings concerning the validity of the intellectual property right are pending in that State.

On March 4, 2014, Judge Lewis Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the $ 9.5 billion judgment against Chevron in Ecuador was the product of fraud and racketeering activity, finding it unenforceable in the United States and holding Steven Donziger liable for RICO violations.

This wording incorporates two important Community law principles which are explained further in the same judgment: «It is settled case law that in the absence of Community rules governing the matter it is for the domestic legal system of each member state to... lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from Community law, provided, however, that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (the principle of equivalence) and do not render virtually impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (the principle of effectiveness).»

And the effects of an even apparently and isolated judgment enforcing this clause could extend to a potentially high number of states, particularly those in Eastern Europe where the respect of the rule of law is continuously under threat.

Whereas the NPRM would have allowed health care providers to disclose an incapacitated patient's information to the facility's directory «at its discretion and consistent with good medical practice and any prior expressions of preference of which the covered entity [was] aware,» the final rule states that in these situations (and in other emergency treatment circumstances), covered health care providers must make the decision on whether to include the patient's information in the facility's directory in accordance with professional judgment as to the patient's best interest.

The summary judgment ruling followed the court's July 30, 2015 denial of the plaintiff's motion for class certification, in which the court, among other things, rejected Plaintiff's attempt to apply California law to a nationwide class in this case, concluding that there were material differences in states» right of publicity laws, and that other states» interests in applying their own right of publicity laws outweighed California's.

Section 164.510 (b) of the final rule, disclosures to family or friends involved in the individual's care, states that when an individual is unable to agree or object to the disclosure due to incapacity or another emergency situation, a covered entity must determine based on the exercise of professional judgment whether it is in the individual's best interest to disclose the information.