Sentences with phrase «judicial rulings found»

An analysis of judicial rulings found that judges were more likely to issue harsher judgements right before lunch or well after lunch, and lighter judgements right after breakfast or lunch, strongly indicating that hunger and blood sugar levels played a role in their decision making.

Not exact matches

Religion was founded on the premise of making mankind better themselves through commandments or rules set down by a deific being who many believe in, in some form or another and the breaking of such will lead to dire consequences, a divine judicial branch.

New Funding Pressures Next month the state Supreme Judicial Court will review the findings of a Superior Court judge who ruled in May that state funding for education is inadequate in poor districts despite the billions of dollar spent since 1993 on bringing struggling school districts up to a reasonable foundation budget.

The ABA found it appropriate to apply the basic tenets of appropriate judicial conduct, such as judges» duty to «respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to maintain and enhance confidence in the judicial system» and to «maintain the dignity of the judicial office at all times» when it applied rules of offline conduct to judges» activities online.

Although Markman assigned claim construction to the trial judge, it did not expressly state whether factual findings subsumed in that issue are subject to de novo review (as normally would be the case for legal rulings) or to review for «clear error» (as normally would apply to judicial fact findings).

Greene has not cited — and the Court has not found — a single statute, regulation, rule, or judicial opinion holding that a litigant has a right of access (under the First Amendment, the common law, or anything else) to communications between a judge and his or her law clerk, including draft opinions and orders.

The court decided to review Issues 2, 3, 5 and 6 on a «deferential standard of reasonableness,» but applied correctness to Issues 1 and 4: «While I acknowledge that in the administrative law context a tribunal may develop its own procedures as to admissibility without the recognized strictures found in the judicial rules of evidence, whereas issues # 1 and # 4 principally involve specific questions of law and concurrent issues involving breaches of natural justice or procedural fairness, I will apply a standard of correctness.

Rejecting the defendant's argument in relation to the rule in Hollington, the judge agreed with the claimant's assertion that the rule was formulated in relation to judicial findings and could not properly be applied to the AAIB report.

He views the disappearance of trials as «a change in [the] very architecture» of our judicial system, a system for resolving disputes that, he notes, has largely remained constant for more than 200 years.8 Similarly, Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan Hecht explains, «It's a detriment if we lose the development of the common law through cases and appeals that have been the [basis of the] rule of law in this country since its founding.»

Of more interest to data protection specialists, the Judge ruled that if he had found a breach of the DPA 1998, he would not have refused relief on the grounds that the C could have brought an ordinary Part 7 claim for breach of the Act, rather than an application for judicial review.

«Purer expression can not be found of rule by judicial fiat,» Scalia wrote.

A. 20 In effect, this means that whilst decisions of the DSB create an obligation on the part of the losing party to comply with WTO rules, enforcement can be achieved by various means — including amicable settlement, compensation, or the suspension of trade concessions.101 Indeed, it was for this reason that the CJEU found in the case of Portugal v Council that a DSB decision did not oblige the losing party to achieve full implementation of its recommendations, where the possibility of temporary compensation or retaliatory measures remained available.102 In other words, the outcome was prescribed, but not the means.103 This contrasts with the position under EU law, where there is a right to an effective remedy from a judicial body.

While a person can be tried and found guilty of both, the rule against double punishment means that there would be an automatic judicial stay on one.

In this class of cases, we think the rule of action which should govern the civil courts, founded in a broad and sound view of the relations of church and state under our system of laws, and supported by a preponderating weight of judicial authority, is that whenever the questions of discipline or of faith or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest of these church judicatories to which the matter has been carried, the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final and as binding on them in their application to the case before them.

The court upheld the state's recusal rules, finding that they are narrowly tailored to serve the compelling state interest in judicial impartiality.

In his ruling, the trial judge found the telewarrant invalid because the judicial justice assisted the officer in preparing his information to obtain.

Judge Lethem, a member of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee and Judicial College trainer on costs, says: «I am deeply uneasy about that desert of applications, because either I have achieved a crystal vision which I thought I did not possess, or the parties are storing up a heap of problems later on down the line because they did not apply to vary, and when they get to the end of the process they are suddenly going to find they have overspent.»

Suppose Congress, in the interest of keeping rulings easier to read and interpret, passes a law that says the judicial branch at large must provide a summary of its findings that does not directly...

This is so because (1) such findings do not constitute facts «not subject to reasonable dispute» within the meaning of Rule 201; 13 and (2) «were [it] permissible for a court to take judicial notice of a fact merely because it had been found to be true in some other action, the doctrine of collateral estoppel would be superfluous.»

But if he's concerned about the small investor, he should (hopefully) be happy about the decision issued yesterday by the Board of Governors of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) «finding Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. violated FINRA rules when the firm attempted to keep investors from participating in judicial class actions by adding waiver language to customer account agreements.»

Judicial review seeks to address an underlying tension between the rule of law and the foundational democratic principle, which finds an expression in the initiatives of Parliament and legislatures to create various administrative bodies and endow them with broad powers.

Defenses of stare decisis usually fall into one of three categories: 1) it promotes the rule of law; 41 2) it promotes the appearance of the rule of law; 42 or 3) it expresses judicial deference to the legislative branch by allowing Congress to correct interpretations of law it finds faulty.43 A closer examination of each of these justifications reveals their basic inapplicability to secret opinions.

Public confidence in and respect for the judiciary are essential to an effective judicial system and, ultimately, to democracy founded on the rule of law.

Wilson argued that this finding mandated a similar result by the court, as Illinois law gives rulings made in administrative hearings the same affect as rulings in judicial proceedings.

Conduct of hearing: The Chairperson shall preside at the hearing, which shall not be bound by the strict rules of evidence applicable to judicial tribunals, but by the Outline of Procedure for Arbitration Hearing found in Part Twelve of this Manual, and by the Chairperson's Procedural Guide: Conduct of an Interboard Arbitration Hearing, also in Part Twelve of this Manual.