Sentences with phrase «legal arguments in court»

Take persuasion and negotiation, or formulating legal arguments in court, or assessing the credibitility of a witness for example.

Not exact matches

Now the entertainment conglomerates that own U.S. television networks are waging a legal fight, culminating in Tuesday's Supreme Court argument against a startup business that uses Internet - based technology to give subscribers the ability to watch programs anywhere they can take portable devices.

The suits are part of a group of at least four other cases with similar arguments in various courts around the country, and they make legal experts wary, particularly as the differences in opinion seem to indicate their destiny to go before the Supreme Court.

Putting aside legal arguments about hidden autonomy rights in the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court justifies its decision on the basis of the «new insight» that procreation is accidental to marriage.

From a legal standpoint, there are two main laws that the observer may use in arguments with Committee members, in courts etc: Federal Law 67 «On basic guarantees» (lays down the rules for elections and referendums) and the Federal Law «On Presidential Election in the Russian Federation».

Eight small cities are fighting for more state aid in a legal battle that will begin oral arguments today in state Supreme Court in Albany.

Last week, the petitioners, which also include the Legal Aid Society, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the New York Civil Liberties Union, submitted a motion for preference to the appellate court, asking that arguments in the case be heard by the end of June.

Assistant U.S. attorney Paul Tuchmann, who presented the government's closing argument in Brooklyn federal court, said Sampson did «whatever he could — legal or illegal — to keep anyone from knowing about that loan.»

Kahn, a former state Supreme Court justice who was appointed a federal judge in 1996, recently instructed both sides to stop filing legal arguments, saying he has enough information to decide the key pre-trial issues on injury and diminution of property values.

The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday will hear oral arguments in the case of Shew vs. Malloy, a legal challenge to the key provisions of Connecticut's post-Newtown gun control legislation.

In a legal brief filed yesterday, the school alleges that the investigation is overbroad, rehashes arguments already rejected by the court, and fails to explain how «Climategate» is relevant to the documents it wants from the school.

The 80 minutes of occasionally spirited argument at the high court this morning focused on the two main issues in the greenhouse gas litigation: For the case to go forward, the plaintiffs must prove that the case has legal standing (they must show that the court is the right venue for resolving this dispute), and that the common law definition of nuisance can support suits over greenhouse gases.

When he challenged the Obama rule in court as Oklahoma's attorney general, Pruitt was one of the leading voices for the legal argument that EPA can't regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants because it already has a standard for mercury and air toxics emission from generators — known as the 112 exclusion, referring to a section of the Clean Air Act.

All Rise (Unrated) Legal argument documentary following the fortunes of seven law students from seven different countries (Palestine, Israel, Uganda, Jamaica, Russia, India and Singapore) as they compete in the world's largest moot court competition staged in Washington, DC.

A legal - reform advocacy group that contends numerous laws, court rulings, and regulations hamper schools in their job of educating students has launched a Web site to help dramatize its arguments.

What the Supreme Court says in Zelman could have a marked effect in structuring the terms of the political debate - not just in determining who wins the legal argument, but in explaining its broader implications in a way that only the Supreme Court can.

WASHINGTON — A new audiotape collection of oral arguments in 23 landmark cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, promoted as a teaching tool for schools, is selling briskly despite the threat of legal action from the Justices.

These serve as the foundation for understanding more complex topics, such as the elements of argument and the chain of legal reasoning used in court cases and historical documents.Advanced Composition and Rhetoric Honors also includes honors enrichment activities.

According to a May 15, 2018 report by Max Mitchell of The Legal Intelligencer, in argument before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court the Philadelphia School District (PSD) contended that it is entitled to immunity under the state's Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PS

The big argument that Tom Kabinet is employing is a 2012 decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union, which ruled in a dispute between Oracle and UsedSoft that the trading of «used» software licenses is legal and that the author of such software can not oppose any resale.

On Tuesday a federal court in Washington D.C. heard oral arguments on a legal challenge to the EPA finding that greenhouse gas pollution is a threat to our health and well - being.

On Tuesday a federal court in Washington D.C. heard oral arguments on a historic case — a legal challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's science - based determination that heat - trapping greenhouse gas pollution is a threat to our health and well - being.

Martin's Beach (2014)- Surfrider Foundation won a heated legal battle at the San Mateo Superior Court when Judge Barbara Mallach ruled in favor of Surfrider's arguments that the gates, change in signage and security guards added to Martin's Beach constituted «development» under the California Coastal Act and thereby requires a Coastal Development Permit («CDP»).

On September 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia heard oral arguments in a major challenge to the Clean Power Plan, West Virginia v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency — an enormously high - stakes legal battle, that could determine whether Obama's climate plan is ever put into effect.

She made specific reference to the legal brief Exxon filed in a Federal District Court in Texas «advancing an argument that everyday aspects of civil society advocacy with public officials should be treated as an illegal conspiracy.»

«We know that we have the stronger legal arguments in this case and that California courts have interpreted state law correctly, including within the parameters of takings analysis,» says Angela Howe, Legal Director for the Surfrider Foundalegal arguments in this case and that California courts have interpreted state law correctly, including within the parameters of takings analysis,» says Angela Howe, Legal Director for the Surfrider FoundaLegal Director for the Surfrider Foundation.

On September 27, 2016, the entire United States District Court for the District of Columbia will hear oral arguments in West Virginia, et al. v EPA, to which E&E Legal is party, challenging the EPA's «Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units» rule under section 111 (d) of the Clean Air Act, over the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulation that will cripple, and in many cases, shut down coal - fired power plants.

In these factual circumstances, the Court essentially made two arguments as to their legal qualification.

One of the arguments put forward by the Court was that the Aarhus Convention could not be relied upon because it «was manifestly designed with the national legal orders in mind».

In the wake of a New York Times article pointing out that five years have elapsed since the last time Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spoke at a high court oral argument, legal observers have been weighing in on the significance of this lengthy silencIn the wake of a New York Times article pointing out that five years have elapsed since the last time Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spoke at a high court oral argument, legal observers have been weighing in on the significance of this lengthy silCourt Justice Clarence Thomas spoke at a high court oral argument, legal observers have been weighing in on the significance of this lengthy silcourt oral argument, legal observers have been weighing in on the significance of this lengthy silencin on the significance of this lengthy silence.

The Court also — in a bit of a formalistic reasoning — rejected the argument that the supposedly criminal law nature of these articles fell outside the scope of article 207 TFEU because «that argument does not explain why Article 114 TFEU would be the correct legal basis in the circumstances» (para. 72).

While most of the curriculum at Harvard during this time consisted of lecture and student recitation, skills development was also provided in the form of weekly moot courts, during which students argued questions of law before professors and submitted occasional written disputations on legal subjects.121 Although Stearns had previously used moot courts in his teaching at Harvard, Story and Ashmun refined them.122 Cases were handed out the week before argument, and two counsel were assigned to each side.123 The cases would then be argued the next Friday, with the other students taking notes of the argument; the professor in charge that week would issue a written opinion.124

18 Unlike the extracurricular interscholastic competitions that bear the same name today, the moot courts of this period were mandatory exercises in the law school curriculum, modeled after the «moots» of the Inns of Courts in England.19 The law school professors of the day gave the students a fictitious case and assisted the students in drafting the pleadings and other documents, preparing the arguments, and then arguing the case.20 In theory, if not always in practice, these were the forerunners of today's legal writing classes that emphasize persuasive wrcourts of this period were mandatory exercises in the law school curriculum, modeled after the «moots» of the Inns of Courts in England.19 The law school professors of the day gave the students a fictitious case and assisted the students in drafting the pleadings and other documents, preparing the arguments, and then arguing the case.20 In theory, if not always in practice, these were the forerunners of today's legal writing classes that emphasize persuasive writinin the law school curriculum, modeled after the «moots» of the Inns of Courts in England.19 The law school professors of the day gave the students a fictitious case and assisted the students in drafting the pleadings and other documents, preparing the arguments, and then arguing the case.20 In theory, if not always in practice, these were the forerunners of today's legal writing classes that emphasize persuasive wrCourts in England.19 The law school professors of the day gave the students a fictitious case and assisted the students in drafting the pleadings and other documents, preparing the arguments, and then arguing the case.20 In theory, if not always in practice, these were the forerunners of today's legal writing classes that emphasize persuasive writinin England.19 The law school professors of the day gave the students a fictitious case and assisted the students in drafting the pleadings and other documents, preparing the arguments, and then arguing the case.20 In theory, if not always in practice, these were the forerunners of today's legal writing classes that emphasize persuasive writinin drafting the pleadings and other documents, preparing the arguments, and then arguing the case.20 In theory, if not always in practice, these were the forerunners of today's legal writing classes that emphasize persuasive writinIn theory, if not always in practice, these were the forerunners of today's legal writing classes that emphasize persuasive writinin practice, these were the forerunners of today's legal writing classes that emphasize persuasive writing.

This will give you the chance to see how a barrister addresses legal facts in issue, and how they present their arguments in court.

More importantly, Reeve made an important step in skills training: he introduced formal moot courts as a part of the Litchfield curriculum, though on an optional basis.53 Initially, the students themselves conducted the moots, though by 1803, when James Gould was teaching at Litchfield, he presided over the arguments.54 The rules Gould imposed for the moots required not only oral argument, but also written argument, because the litigants had to produce writs and pleadings as well.55 Although a far cry from modern legal writing programs, these moot courts at least endeavored to provide some practical training in the production of persuasive writing.56

The importer appealed to the Supreme Court, which held that in copyright cases the «objective reasonableness» of the losing party's legal position carries «substantial weight» in deciding whether to grant attorneys» fees to the winning party — but that factor alone is not dispositive: a party's litigation misconduct or «repeated» infringement or «overaggressive» enforcement of claims could also justify a fee award even if a party's legal argument was reasonable.

In a nutshell, the Court will address how far a Court should go to help a self - rep with poorly expressed legal argument, to what extent Courts should give leeway to self - reps on procedural issues, and the legal test for civil contempt as applied to a self - rep.

The Virginia Court of Appeals ruled that husband had waived his argument that the circuit court erred in ruling that Husband's adultery was the primary cause of the dissolution of the marriage because Husband failed to cite legal authority in support of his argument in his appellate opening brief as required by Rule 5A: 20 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of VirgCourt of Appeals ruled that husband had waived his argument that the circuit court erred in ruling that Husband's adultery was the primary cause of the dissolution of the marriage because Husband failed to cite legal authority in support of his argument in his appellate opening brief as required by Rule 5A: 20 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virgcourt erred in ruling that Husband's adultery was the primary cause of the dissolution of the marriage because Husband failed to cite legal authority in support of his argument in his appellate opening brief as required by Rule 5A: 20 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of VirgCourt of Virginia.

For example, a casual perusal of the online legal research service Westlaw reveals that «mumbo jumbo» appears at least 251 times in judicial opinions.8 «Jibber - jabber» shows up just seven times (although surprisingly used by parties, rather than in statements from the court), while the more prosaic «gobbledygook» has 126 hits in the legal database.9 Believed to have been coined in 1944 by U.S. Rep. Maury Maverick of Texas, «gobbledygook» has been used by everyone from political figures referring to bureaucratic doublespeak (for example, President Ronald Reagan's stinging 1985 indictment of tax law revisions as «cluttered with gobbledygook and loopholes designed for those with the power and influence to have high - priced legal and tax advisers») to judges decrying the indecipherable arguments and pleadings of the lawyers practicing before them.

In doing so, the Court rejected the Parliament's argument in favour of a dual legal basis, which would have brought in the Parliament as a veto - player in the adoption process of the contested decisioIn doing so, the Court rejected the Parliament's argument in favour of a dual legal basis, which would have brought in the Parliament as a veto - player in the adoption process of the contested decisioin favour of a dual legal basis, which would have brought in the Parliament as a veto - player in the adoption process of the contested decisioin the Parliament as a veto - player in the adoption process of the contested decisioin the adoption process of the contested decision.

In developing the method, the team found that judgements by the ECtHR are highly correlated to non-legal facts rather than directly legal arguments, suggesting that judges of the Court are, in the jargon of legal theory, «realists» rather than «formalists»In developing the method, the team found that judgements by the ECtHR are highly correlated to non-legal facts rather than directly legal arguments, suggesting that judges of the Court are, in the jargon of legal theory, «realists» rather than «formalists»in the jargon of legal theory, «realists» rather than «formalists».

In one blistering paragraph, Zywicki writes, «Leaving aside all of the intellectual arguments for whether the Court should or should not rely on international law for constitutional guidance, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Court's periodic reliance on world legal opinion is purely strategic rather than sincere, perhaps to dress up the Court's personal predilections in the guise of legal authority.&raquIn one blistering paragraph, Zywicki writes, «Leaving aside all of the intellectual arguments for whether the Court should or should not rely on international law for constitutional guidance, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Court's periodic reliance on world legal opinion is purely strategic rather than sincere, perhaps to dress up the Court's personal predilections in the guise of legal authority.&raquin the guise of legal authority.»

«What,» he then asks, «is the legal justification for this argument that kangaroo court military hearings are an adequate replacement for real judicial hearings in a real court?»

The ECJ dismissed the arguments of the applicants that the General Court erred in law in finding that Article 95 (currently Article 114 TFEU) constituted a solid legal basis (paras. 21 - 42).

The court accepted the argument of the UK government that immunity of the Saudi state and its officials from legal action in UK courts, which had been upheld by the House of Lords, did not violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

At a highly emotional and stressful time, when your children, home, property, and future income may be on the line, you should not have to argue your own case in court, prepare your own legal arguments, or settle your matter without legal advice.

There is drama and excitement in court but this is usually broken up by long periods of dull procedural and legal argument.

In the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court same - sex marriage arguments, a post by law professor Dale Carpenter on The Volokh Conspiracy blog has been making the rounds on Twitter and in the legal blogospherIn the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court same - sex marriage arguments, a post by law professor Dale Carpenter on The Volokh Conspiracy blog has been making the rounds on Twitter and in the legal blogospherin the legal blogosphere.

Because of the wider importance of the issues to all parties it was proposed (and agreed) that the application would be made in the first instance without legal argument (with Goldacre and Luminar to be followed) and with an appeal to the Court of Appeal to be allowed.

The Court, secondly, and in line with settled case - law, refuted the argument that the request was inadmissible because the EU itself was not a party to the Convention, because the request was made to clarify the competence of the EU, not the legal obstacles the EU may face in concluding international agreements (this can be done through the Member States, paras 43 - 44).