Gorsuch's commitments to interpreting the law as «the words on the paper say» and not over-criminalizing innocent conduct were on full display in a 2015 decision in which he used «plain old grade school grammar» to determine
the legal penalties imposed on defendants accused of using a firearm «during and in relation to any crime of violence of drug trafficking crime.»
Not exact matches
Unconscionable conduct (agrees with NFF that they have not provided protection and support reforms «to provide transparency in the supply chain» and recognise that «certain classes of suppliers... are predisposed to suffering from a special disadvantage...»; misuse of market power (
legal framework must «level the balance of market power in negotiations...», «ensure transparency in the transmission of market prices» and «not allow for final market risks to be borne by the primary producer» and provide «transparency of contract processes» - specifically, Canegrowers supports effects test and a process giving ACCC greater power to «regulate anti-competitive behaviour and
impose penalties», shifting «the decisions framework from the judicial system to a regulatory system» which would make it more accessible to small producers); collective bargaining (notes limits of Sugar Industry Act (Qld); authorisation and notification approval costly and limited and not a viable alternative - peak bodies should be able to «commence and progress collective bargaining with mills on behalf of their members» and current threshold too restrictive)» competitive neutrality (mixed outcomes - perverse outcomes in the case of natural monopolies - suggest remove «application of competitive neutrality provisions to natural monopoly essential services»)
By contrast, in New York City, where profound reforms were implemented in 1989, the Campaign Finance Board
imposed 128
penalties on 31 candidates that accepted contributions above the
legal limit.
It would not be possible to hide this tactic, and so it should be straightforward to make a
legal challenge and for a court to
impose some sort of
penalty, either financial, or electoral, or both, on the party.
Still not satisfied, the telecom giant approached a Lagos High Court in December to quash the fine, arguing that the regulator had no
legal grounds to
impose such
penalty.
The Commission stated only that it
imposed the
penalty due to «failures by a regulated entity» but could not «disclose further information» because of
legal restrictions.
Prisons are conventionally institutions which form part of the criminal justice system of a country, such that imprisonment or incarceration is the
legal penalty that may be
imposed by the state for the commission of a crime.
In practice, Phillips said, police, judges and the public at large treat BAC 0.08 percent as «a sharp, definitive, meaningful boundary,» and do not
impose severe
penalties on those below the
legal limit.
For instance, the early withdrawal
penalty may be
imposed if the withdrawal is caused by our setoff against funds in the account or as a result of an attachment or other
legal process.
This material is provided for general and educational purposes only, and is not intended to provide
legal, tax or investment advice, or for use to avoid
penalties that may be
imposed under U.S. federal tax laws.
Liability is
imposed for any
legal and equitable relief as deemed appropriate also an administrative
penalty of no more than $ 9,000 for each violation may be
imposed
The fact that the relationship did not appear to affect Hunter's
legal duties played a factor in the court's decision to
impose a fairly reserved
penalty.
AKT represents clients in reconciliation meetings and
legal actions in connection with taxes and
penalties illegally
imposed.
Two months later, Justice Strekaf
imposed the
penalty for the contempt, ordering the Tsuu T'ina Nation to pay «reasonable costs and expenses» of the three residents, as well as their
legal costs (although only at the
legal aid rate).
It helps you get away from
legal penalties that may
impose due to loss / damage to any third - party.
Just prior to Melanie Aitken's August 2009 appointment to the federal Competition Bureau's top job (Commissioner), the government implemented sweeping
legal powers, dictatorial and unconstitutional in nature, in my opinion, that enabled Ms Aitken to
impose «Administrative Monetary
Penalties» (AMPs) on businesses that she alone determined to be in violation of the Competition Act.