Sentences with phrase «jurisdiction over a matter if»

A federal court has jurisdiction over a matter if there is a federal question or if it is a diversity of citizenship case.

Not exact matches

If another state agency has jurisdiction over the matter, they may refer the issue to that agency.

In a nutshell, the Court argued that if a court or tribunal potentially rules on a matter «covered by EU law» (para. 55), and if that court or tribunal is situated outside the EU judicial system, the autonomy of EU law is under threat, even if EU law is only occasionally relevant to the disputes over which arbitral tribunals exercise jurisdiction.

The appellate court explained that if the City had sovereign immunity from suit, the lower court would not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

Their validity in prenuptial agreements that preclude the jurisdiction of Japanese courts will likely be upheld if the matter in question is not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Japanese courts, and if the court designated by the agreement would have jurisdiction over the matter in question, independently, under the law applicable in that forum.

If Pennsylvania declines jurisdiction, the family court shall request Pennsylvania issue an order finding it no longer retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction Pennsylvania Courts do not have jurisdiction over the matter of custody of this minor child.

The Committee is convinced that the time has come when important changes and solutions can be implemented only if a Family Court is created with original exclusive jurisdiction over the entire field of matters affecting the family.

For these matters, a Plaintiff can file the action in South Carolina even if there is no personal jurisdiction over the Defendant.

(a) If a written agreement is entered into by the parties, the parties may utilize a collaborative law process to resolve any matter governed by this code over which the court is granted jurisdiction.

(3) A judge presiding over the Family Court may, on motion, order that a proceeding commenced in the Family Court be transferred to the appropriate court in a place where the Family Court does not have jurisdiction if, in the judge's opinion, the preponderance of convenience favours having the matter dealt with by that court in that place.

A court may not recognize a foreign - country judgment if: the judgment was rendered under a judicial system that does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law, as determined by the court using standards developed by the American Law Institute and the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law to govern resolution of transnational disputes; the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant; or the foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Justice Mactavish retained her jurisdiction over the matter and will hear the case again if the Ministers fail to meet their duties with regard to these four species.

Learned senior counsel emphasized that Section 5 of the Act expressly bars intervention of the Courts except in matters expressly provided for in the Act 10 and, therefore, even if the petition filed by the respondents under Section 9 could be treated as maintainable, the High Court did not have jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings because the same are governed by the laws of England.

107 DOS 98 Matter of DOS v. Sosis - subject matter jurisdiction; due process; failure to appear at hearing; proper business practices; deposits; fraudulent practice; DOS fails its burden of proof; DOS has subject matter jurisdiction if at the time the disciplinary proceeding was commenced by proper service of a notice of hearing and complaint the party was (i) licensed to engage in regulated real estate activities, or (ii) an applicant for either a license or for the renewal of a license to engage in regulated real estate activities, or (iii) eligible to automatically renew the prior license under the two - year limitation provision of RPL § 441 (2); ex parte hearing is permissible upon proof of proper notice of hearing; DOS has subject matter jurisdiction where party was licensed at the time proceeding was commenced and, where at time of hearing, although not licensed was eligible to automatically apply to renew pursuant to RPL § 441 (2); licensee operated a real estate brokerage business under an unlicensed name; licensee unlawfully retains deposit funds after deposit monies were delivered on the condition that same were to be disbursed only on the principal's consent and approval and said consent and approval was not given; licensee's illegal exercise of right of ownership over his principal's funds spawns conversion and constitutes a fraudulent practice; DOS fails its burden of proof to establish licensee failed to deposit trust funds in a segregated escrow account, engaged in fraud and changed business location without notice to DOS; restitution ordered in the amount of $ 1,900 plus interest, fine of $ 1,000 and any further application for licensure shall not be considered until applicant pays said fine and provides proof of payment of restiMatter of DOS v. Sosis - subject matter jurisdiction; due process; failure to appear at hearing; proper business practices; deposits; fraudulent practice; DOS fails its burden of proof; DOS has subject matter jurisdiction if at the time the disciplinary proceeding was commenced by proper service of a notice of hearing and complaint the party was (i) licensed to engage in regulated real estate activities, or (ii) an applicant for either a license or for the renewal of a license to engage in regulated real estate activities, or (iii) eligible to automatically renew the prior license under the two - year limitation provision of RPL § 441 (2); ex parte hearing is permissible upon proof of proper notice of hearing; DOS has subject matter jurisdiction where party was licensed at the time proceeding was commenced and, where at time of hearing, although not licensed was eligible to automatically apply to renew pursuant to RPL § 441 (2); licensee operated a real estate brokerage business under an unlicensed name; licensee unlawfully retains deposit funds after deposit monies were delivered on the condition that same were to be disbursed only on the principal's consent and approval and said consent and approval was not given; licensee's illegal exercise of right of ownership over his principal's funds spawns conversion and constitutes a fraudulent practice; DOS fails its burden of proof to establish licensee failed to deposit trust funds in a segregated escrow account, engaged in fraud and changed business location without notice to DOS; restitution ordered in the amount of $ 1,900 plus interest, fine of $ 1,000 and any further application for licensure shall not be considered until applicant pays said fine and provides proof of payment of restimatter jurisdiction; due process; failure to appear at hearing; proper business practices; deposits; fraudulent practice; DOS fails its burden of proof; DOS has subject matter jurisdiction if at the time the disciplinary proceeding was commenced by proper service of a notice of hearing and complaint the party was (i) licensed to engage in regulated real estate activities, or (ii) an applicant for either a license or for the renewal of a license to engage in regulated real estate activities, or (iii) eligible to automatically renew the prior license under the two - year limitation provision of RPL § 441 (2); ex parte hearing is permissible upon proof of proper notice of hearing; DOS has subject matter jurisdiction where party was licensed at the time proceeding was commenced and, where at time of hearing, although not licensed was eligible to automatically apply to renew pursuant to RPL § 441 (2); licensee operated a real estate brokerage business under an unlicensed name; licensee unlawfully retains deposit funds after deposit monies were delivered on the condition that same were to be disbursed only on the principal's consent and approval and said consent and approval was not given; licensee's illegal exercise of right of ownership over his principal's funds spawns conversion and constitutes a fraudulent practice; DOS fails its burden of proof to establish licensee failed to deposit trust funds in a segregated escrow account, engaged in fraud and changed business location without notice to DOS; restitution ordered in the amount of $ 1,900 plus interest, fine of $ 1,000 and any further application for licensure shall not be considered until applicant pays said fine and provides proof of payment of restimatter jurisdiction if at the time the disciplinary proceeding was commenced by proper service of a notice of hearing and complaint the party was (i) licensed to engage in regulated real estate activities, or (ii) an applicant for either a license or for the renewal of a license to engage in regulated real estate activities, or (iii) eligible to automatically renew the prior license under the two - year limitation provision of RPL § 441 (2); ex parte hearing is permissible upon proof of proper notice of hearing; DOS has subject matter jurisdiction where party was licensed at the time proceeding was commenced and, where at time of hearing, although not licensed was eligible to automatically apply to renew pursuant to RPL § 441 (2); licensee operated a real estate brokerage business under an unlicensed name; licensee unlawfully retains deposit funds after deposit monies were delivered on the condition that same were to be disbursed only on the principal's consent and approval and said consent and approval was not given; licensee's illegal exercise of right of ownership over his principal's funds spawns conversion and constitutes a fraudulent practice; DOS fails its burden of proof to establish licensee failed to deposit trust funds in a segregated escrow account, engaged in fraud and changed business location without notice to DOS; restitution ordered in the amount of $ 1,900 plus interest, fine of $ 1,000 and any further application for licensure shall not be considered until applicant pays said fine and provides proof of payment of restimatter jurisdiction where party was licensed at the time proceeding was commenced and, where at time of hearing, although not licensed was eligible to automatically apply to renew pursuant to RPL § 441 (2); licensee operated a real estate brokerage business under an unlicensed name; licensee unlawfully retains deposit funds after deposit monies were delivered on the condition that same were to be disbursed only on the principal's consent and approval and said consent and approval was not given; licensee's illegal exercise of right of ownership over his principal's funds spawns conversion and constitutes a fraudulent practice; DOS fails its burden of proof to establish licensee failed to deposit trust funds in a segregated escrow account, engaged in fraud and changed business location without notice to DOS; restitution ordered in the amount of $ 1,900 plus interest, fine of $ 1,000 and any further application for licensure shall not be considered until applicant pays said fine and provides proof of payment of restitution