Sentences with phrase «jurisdiction judges in the state»

Two constitutional amendments to modify the commission system (which applies to appellate judges and general jurisdiction judges in the state's largest counties) were filed this year.

Not exact matches

In 1812 Joseph Story became the youngest judge ever to be appointed to the Supreme Court, and over the course of his lengthy tenure (1812 - 1845) he was Chief Justice John Marshall's right - hand man in defining the role of the court itself, and its jurisdiction over state an4 national lawsIn 1812 Joseph Story became the youngest judge ever to be appointed to the Supreme Court, and over the course of his lengthy tenure (1812 - 1845) he was Chief Justice John Marshall's right - hand man in defining the role of the court itself, and its jurisdiction over state an4 national lawsin defining the role of the court itself, and its jurisdiction over state an4 national laws..

Several jurisdictions in the United States now have a «triage» judge who screens cases and diverts them away from the court.

She countersued in Manhattan federal court, but a judge ruled the United States did not have jurisdiction over an English court's decision, which prompted Lancman's bill.

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).

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's only errors were in the wording of the question to the jury regarding causation, and that the trial judge stated he did not have jurisdiction to poll the jury when he did.

The judge stated that the court had jurisdiction to grant a release «entirely or conditionally» and referred to the recent decision of HHJ Pelling QC in Hayes v Hayes [2012] EWHC 1240 (Ch) as being the only authority to date in which the scope of the discretion had been considered.

In the first federal court ruling (PDF) concerning attempts by city and state jurisdictions to regulate the use of drones, a judge denied a requirement by a city near Boston regarding local registration and significant bans on where and how low they can fly.

Sir Anthony Clarke MR (giving the judgment of the court): The facts found by the judge were that the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq (following the ousting of the government of Saddam Hussain) had issued an order whereby the multinational force (of which British troops formed a pArt) should be «immune from Iraqi legal process» and that all personnel should be «subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of their sending States».

Judge Schechter held that the state in which the first proceeding was filed should normally assume jurisdiction, since DRL § 76 - e indicates that a court may not exercise jurisdiction if «at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, a proceeding concerning the custody of the child has been commenced in a court of another state having jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this article, unless the proceeding has been terminated or is stayed by the court of the other state.»

In the first federal court ruling (PDF) concerning attempts by city and state jurisdictions to regulate the use of drones, a judge denied a requirement by a city...

Speech by Sir James Munby (president of the family courts) to the Society of editors: - «I have said this many times in the past but it must never be forgotten that, with the state's abandonment of the right to impose capital sentences, orders of the kind which family judges are typically invited to make in public law proceedings are amongst the most drastic that any judge in any jurisdiction is ever empowered to make.

While legal systems depend on the flexibility afforded by discretionary power vested in lawyers, the sheer expanse of discretion in preliminary examination bolsters the power of the prosecutor vis - á - vis victims, judges, the public and, in international jurisdictions, the States concerned.

Third Circuit grants plaintiffs» petition for permission to appeal in case challenging the lawfulness of GSK's diversity re-removals of state court Paxil personal injury cases more than one year after the cases were filed in state court: This afternoon, a three - judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit entered an order granting my clients» petition for permission to appeal in a case presenting the question «Whether a defendant may remove a case a second time based on diversity jurisdiction more than one year after the commencement of the case?»

It exercises the discretionary power of a State Government in authorizing the establishment of a court in which the judges hold their appointments for a term of years only, and not during good behaviour, and it exercises the power of the General Government in investing that [p446] court with admiralty jurisdiction, over which the General Government had exclusive jurisdiction in the Territory.

Thus it will be seen by these quotations from the opinion that the court, after stating the question it was about to decide in a manner too plain to be misunderstood, proceeded to decide it, and announced, as the opinion of the tribunal, that in organizing the judicial department of the Government in a Territory of the United States, Congress does not act under, and is not restricted by, the third article in the Constitution, and is not bound, in a Territory, to ordain and establish courts in which the judges hold their offices during good behaviour, but may exercise the discretionary power which a State exercises in establishing its judicial department and regulating the jurisdiction of its courts, and may authorize the Territorial Government to establish, or may itself establish, courts in which the judges hold their offices for a term of years only, and may vest in them judicial power upon subjects confided to the judiciary of the United States.

The rule states that students are permitted to appear as counsel, under supervision, for «an appeal in the Court of Appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada; a civil or criminal jury trial; [and] a proceeding on an indictable offence, unless the offence is within the absolute jurisdiction of a provincial court judge.»

On appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge's reasons, stating that: as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17 (CanLII), the Courts must be cautious when considering whether an entity is carrying on business in the jurisdiction,... Read More

But it seems unlikely that it will have that much resonance in an Ottawa where every measure is judged in terms of increasing electoral support in Québec and the winning of the next election and in Foggy Bottom, where the State Department is still articulating American needs in terms of a post-September 11 paradigm, in which traditional concerns of national jurisdiction have a lesser weightFor which see todays» news on the long journey of the NatWest Three.

This very varied evidentiary legislation situation, will produce a very inconsistent caselaw, one jurisdiction to the next, once judges and lawyers realize the consequences in law required by the fundamental difference between an electronic record and a pre-electronic paper record — in particular, the «system integrity concept» that is expressly stated in the electronic records provisions; e.g.: s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the Ontario Evidence Act; and, s. 31.2 (1) of the Canada Evidence Act (see my Slaw blog article, «The Dependence of Electronic Discovery and Admissibility upon Electronic Records Management,» published Nov. 22, 2013).

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 statementIn 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 statementin 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.

The study looked at cases in the 4th largest jurisdiction in the United States, 11th Judicial Circuit in Florida with the goal of assessing expectations, perceptions and perceived efficacy of parenting coordination from the point of view of family law attorneys, judges and parenting coordinators.