Sentences with phrase «know about court cases»

Here's something you may not know about court cases: There are often people in the public gallery who are paid to closely watch the members of the jury to see how they react to different witnesses.

Not exact matches

In referring to 1964, Abrams is talking about the landmark Sullivan vs. New York Times case, in which the Supreme Court established what's known as the «malice standard» for libel.

According to a court filing, Judge Rudolph Contreras, who presided over a December 1 hearing where Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russia, will no longer handle the case.

You didn't know about major court cases regarding your privacy policies against your company.

And those who care about religious liberty should know at least as much about that case, McCullen v. Coakley, as they do about the more narrowly decided case with which the Court ended its term.

Known as the «X case,» the decision sparked an ongoing debate about how to interpret the legislative mandate from the court, with successive governments reluctant to touch the issue for fear of upsetting the public.

13:17 - As far as you're aware, Coulson and Hinton knew about the legal fees up until the court case?

Mr Straw has known about the cases, which initially involved Leeds magistrates» court but are suspected could go much wider, for some weeks.»

But to me they are so real cause one worked for me not quite two weeks.i met this man on a blog his name is Dr Abalaka is a very powerful man.I traveled down to where his shrine his and we both did the ritual and sacrifice.he had no website site, and now me and my ex are living very ok now.I don't know about you but Voodoo is real; love marriage, finance, job promotion, lottery Voodoo, poker voodoo, golf Voodoo, Law & Court case Spells, money voodoo, weigh loss voodoo, diabetic voodoo, hypertensive voodoo, high cholesterol voodoo, Trouble in marriage, Barrenness (need a child), Luck, Money Spells, it's all he does.

Today in school vouchers: One Supreme Court case and two new studies you should know about chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2017/...

Even graduates of the worst public schools know about the landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases Plessey vs. Ferguson and Brown vs. The Board of Education.

Find out about the stories behind little - known Supreme Court cases, the Spanish influenza and 19th - century orphans shipped to Michigan from New York.

Covering all Supreme Court cases, this new feature compiles information and commentary into a resource that houses virtually everything you might want to know about -LSB-...]

On the other hand, if one is an august body of last resort ignoring its own recent precedents (for example, the Supreme Court of Canada — this has been known to happen (g)-RRB- one apparently gets to claim that it's not necessary to refer to the prior cases because the principles one is about to outline «emerge» from the cases.

Covering all Supreme Court cases, this new feature compiles information and commentary into a resource that houses virtually everything you might want to know about a case.

I blogged sometime ago about a New Jersey case where a Court found that someone sending a text to someone else who he knows is driving can be held liable — along with the driver — for the resulting crash and injuries caused to others.

Under a new law that was passed, courts will no longer be allowed to inquire about plaintiffs» immigration statuses in personal injury cases.

But the judge reading the lawyer's brief doesn't care a whit about whether the lawyer was surprised that the court considered extrinsic evidence; the judge cares only that the court considered it, and wants to know how that ruling affects the case before him.

No, I'm not talking about this court case.

I have in the past complained about the abysmal lack of online access to Canadian court dockets at the same time as trying to compile a list of known links to Canadian court dockets to my Case Law research page on my legal research and writing website.

This preparation then lets the defendants know she's serious about proving the case in court if a full and fair settlement offer is not made.

«Attorneys will be able to use it to see how a court has dealt with cases on a particular topic or motion, what they key cases are they should know about, and the particular rules, standards and language that are most important in that venue,» Lewis said.

I had covered a total of one court case previously and knew not so much about law or the justice system.

The Oxford University study, The Media and the Family Courts — key information and questions about the Children, Schools and Families Bill, points out that omitting names will not prevent a local community from identifying parties, if it knows a court case is underway.

And if you're curious about what such a person might do to earn this label, you need look no further than the very recent Ontario Court of Appeal case of Doobay v. Diamond 2012 ONCA 580.

In that case, at first instance and on appeal the court held that the party who had terminated a contract for a bad reason and ceased performing leading the other party to terminate for repudiation could not then claim damages when it, subsequently, discovered other grounds which, if it had known about them, would have entitled it to terminate.

Though he knows the names of the individuals concerned, Garnier says he does not know enough about the underlying facts or the basis on which the case was put to give a view on whether the Court of Appeal was right to grant the injunction.

As to balancing the rights of the plaintiff with those of the defendant in this case, «Under the circumstances the plaintiff should not be put out of court and the defendant granted a windfall that it could not have known about or relied upon.»

I know that there is a case law, and I do not have it readily available, but I seem to recall that some Courts, and I do not know whether that would be binding on this Court or not, some Courts have ruled that «on or about» means that day.

It was premised on the fact that, while we know that approximately 2 % of cases filed in section 96 courts resolve by trial, we know almost nothing about what happens to the other 98 %.

«D.C. Gun Case May Shoot to the Supreme Court Main Everything You Wanted to Know About Adam Smith (Also, a Lesson in the Benefits of Blogging)»

According to court records in the case, the question was whether the trial court erred, even though the evidence tended to show the plaintiff, as a business invitee, knew about the dangerous condition on the floor.

It was premised on the fact that, while we know that only approximately 2 % of superior court cases go to trial, we know very little about what happens to the other 98 % of filed cases.

While we can't know for certain what the courts will say about the current dispute, particularly until we know exactly what the basis is for the teacher's challenge of the legislation, the most recent cases from the Ontario Court of Appeal dealing with similar issues do not look great for the teachers.

People representing themselves in court can face multiple obstacles, including not knowing legal procedures, having unreasonable expectations about how the case will end, and not fully understanding their legal issues, Riquelme said.

Discovery, as all lawyers know, is the process of collecting and exchanging information about the court case to prepare for the trial.

But as civil justice fans everywhere also know, today is the day that the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments for what could be the most consequential case of the term (and one we've been blogging about for months!)

The defendant asked the trial court to dismiss the case, arguing that the plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the restaurant knew about the dangerous condition.

«It's just not right societally,» he says, noting Weatherill's approach would put a damper on class actions in opt - in jurisdictions since prospective plaintiffs would have to both know about and choose to participate in a matter elsewhere in order to have a chance at redressing an alleged wrong since the court may not allow the case to go ahead in their home province.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld a decision to strike a defamation claim against a well - known personal injury lawyer in London, Ont., over statements about a case against a local obstetrician and gynecologist.

You try to bring an appropriate amount of humour to the task, in the — you can't make jokes about — some cases are so deadly serious there's not a laugh to be had but at the appropriate time, you know, you try to bring a bit of light - heartedness into the matter... but humour's a dangerous thing in court.

The reason I am writing about this is that while ordinary litigants, who go to court to assert or defend their own legal rights and interests, are perfectly entitled not to care about what the public knows about their cases, it seems to me that public interest litigants, who ostensibly pursue matters not on their own behalf but on that of the public at large or at least of some section of the public, are, in my view, in a different position.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard the oral arguments in the B.C. hearing fees case, now known as Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), a case I have much blogged about as it made its way through the B.C. courts (where it was known Villardell v. Dunham, both on trial and on appeal).

-- the CCC demonstrated that it knew rather little about the relevant rules concerning preliminary ruling procedure, whereby the Commission (and the Member State Governments together with other institutions and also the parties to the case before the referring court) are invited to submit observations (Art. 23 of the CJEU's Statute), no such provision is made for national courts and other institutions.

I wrote yesterday about the oral argument which the Supreme Court heard on Monday in the case now known as Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), formerly Villardell v. Dunham.

You need to know that as a general principle the loser of a case may have to pay the winner's costs and so even with a CFA you need to be insured against the risk of you losing and having to pay your opponent's costs and your own expenses (disbursements) other than our fees e.g. court fees, expert's fees such as doctors providing medical reports about you etc..

The key in such a case is to ensure your letter conveys the facts that are relevant to the cause of action, so you can show the judge, «See, they knew about the problem and refused to do anything about it, so I was forced to come to court.»

In Bristol City Council v Hassan [2006] EWCA Civ 656, [2006] 4 All ER 420, the Court of Appeal was so concerned about the apparent unfairness associated with tolerated trespass in a rent arrears case that it suggested the problem could be overcome by courts making no - date possession orders, ie possession orders that require the landlord to return to court for a possession date to be fCourt of Appeal was so concerned about the apparent unfairness associated with tolerated trespass in a rent arrears case that it suggested the problem could be overcome by courts making no - date possession orders, ie possession orders that require the landlord to return to court for a possession date to be fcourt for a possession date to be fixed.

Now, what you'll hear about this one is a bit technical: that the Supreme Court in 2005 made a major decision known as «Brand X» establishing the precedent that, in case of ambiguity in the law (like how broadband companies should be defined), the courts would defer to any reasonable interpretation made by an expert agency like the FCC.

It's important to let your family lawyer and family court judges know about any criminal or children protection cases.