Sentences with phrase «legal stand point»

I want to make sure my personal assets are covered from a legal stand point.

From a legal stand point freedom of speech — or more accurately freedom of expression — absolutely does «include offensive and hate speech».

Such serious injuries involve a long and arduous recovery, and can often prevent you from being able to do much for yourself at all let alone from a legal stand point.

There was nothing stopping them from a legal stand point.

Not exact matches

You know my long - standing point, which I'm glad to say is being picked up in some legal writing, that there are not two clauses but one.

After ritually assuring us of same - sex marriage's inevitable triumph as a civil right, and noting the predictable criticism of Wuerl's stand from progressive Catholics, the editorial rightly points out that there is precedent for a legal compromise.

Whatever the league outwardly says it plans to do, all signs right now point to NFL owners eventually deciding to make players stand, opening up big problems on the legal front, creating a situation that the NFLPA will not let go unchallenged.

The point is that any person whether they have power as a demagogue, or through illegal use of our justice system, can threaten the legal standing of our democracy.

In the legal world, the first point is referred to as «standing,» that is, whether plaintiffs have a right to bring a particular case to court.

The institute dropped the lawsuit after EPA attorneys argued that the group lacked legal standing to bring the litigation; the agency also pointed to a 1999 decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that concluded that receipt of grant money didn't mean that advisory committee members were «susceptible to improper influence.»

To get to the point where the majority of people think ecocide is wrong is going to take a transition, which is where Higgins stands out, advocating several steps towards legal abolition of the sort of pollution we now see as commonplace.

This funding gap can be filled however, and as AltFi point out, alternative funders such as VFS Legal are standing strong where bank lending is declining, with the peer - to - peer sector lending a total of # 208m in January 2017.

With the rise of AI, the legal world stands at a key turning point.

From Eddie's point of view, bringing non-lawyers into the fold will bring such benefit to the legal consumers that it is unethical to stand in the way: «In the U.S., members of the legal profession know we could build a better system, but we refuse to act.

You'd be hard pressed, though, to prove that with a few twists here and there a list wasn't arrived at independently — and, more to the point, perhaps, these are such broad terms and so basic to legal work and promulgation no one should be able to stand in the way of their free use.

Already, as Simon has pointed out, the type of legal work most commonly found in small towns simply doesn't pay enough to justify law society fees, professional insurance and practice overhead (or at least, to supply the type of income most lawyers still consider commensurate with their professional standing).

When we point out that the burden really lies upon those who would toss aside centuries of history on short - term, flimsy evidence, who ignore the actual evidence of heavy consolidations with more to follow, who would saddle us with a change that would be irreversible regardless of how much harm it later engendered, who would risk so much of what the legal profession has stood for, who refuse to work anywhere near as hard on real solutions to real problems as they do on this pig - in - a-poke, then we are met with silence or insults.

Client comments as published in the legal directories and guides include: «A first - class mind and clearly a silk in the making»; «a QC in waiting»; «a very bright, uber - responsive, rising star»; «formidable advocate able to stand up to commercial silks and senior juniors»; «an extremely impressive and effective advocate who gets on top of things extremely fast and is quick on his feet»; «complete grasp of all current developments, strategic input and forceful yet polite cross-examination»; «undoubted star junior who goes well past the extra mile in preparing his cases»; «brilliant, completely committed to the brief; a great all - rounder»; «intellectually very strong»; «very sharp and to the point»; «ringing endorsements from the market»; «impressive and knows his stuff»; «razor sharp legal skills»; «comes up with extremely clever points» with an ability «to handle hearings with utmost self - possession and confidence and produce some first - class advocacy»; «a thorough and thoughtful advocate who has an agreeable but tough courtroom manner»; «very proactive and, once instructed, takes control of a case and pushes it forward to the advantage of the client»; «has the ability to sift through complex legal problems, and present practical legal solutions that not only win you the battles, but also the war»; «very commercial and savvy»; «infectious passion for the law»; «his commitment to his work is outstanding»; «relentless energy and precise attention to detail make him invaluable.»

AIG legal counsel Samantha Stocker is one Newby points to as a «home - grown» future leader who has particularly stood out of late.

For example, procedural questions may turn on unfamiliar sources of enacted law — such as court local rules or judges» administrative or standing orders — that may be more conveniently found on a given court's official website than on Lexis or Westlaw, if they are available on subscription databases at all.60 And for practicing attorneys, jurisdiction - specific forms and the previous work of other attorneys who have done similar things can be valuable resources.61 So legal blogs, firm white papers, and actual filings available through PACER or Bloomberg Law can be valuable tools — at least as a jumping - off point.

Stare Decisis isn't going away, but at what point does the standing of the issuing court or even the legal accuracy of the judge's ruling in McKay become moot?

Moreover, this could also be an appropriate test case for the Supreme Court to clarify that the principles set out in National Bank of Canada v. RCIU (the case cited by the hyperbolic Bruce Pardy) do not apply to lawyers, either in their personal or professional capacities, and that Lavigne and Green together stand for the principle that not only is there no right «not to associate» in Canadian law, there is also no right «not to speak» when it comes to lawyers, contrary to the misapprehension of those who are shocked and amazed that the Law Society can require them to adopt a «Statement of Principles» that will, as the supporting legal opinion points out, make their «generic human rights obligations» more «personal... tangible... and readily accessible.»

Concerning, prosecution argument (iii), Bingham f lags up his concerns that the criminal courts have sadly slid down the slippery slope to the point where, as here, witnesses can give anonymous evidence, with the assistance of excessively draconian «protective measures», which cumulatively consign the defendant's right to a fair trial, to the legal dustbin, «by a series of small steps, largely unobjectionable on their own facts, the courts have arrived at a position which is irreconcilable with long - standing principle.»

From a legal point of view there are two priorities which stand out: Priority 2.3, to «uphold the rights of people living with mental health problems and illnesses,» which includes recommendations relating to the removal of barriers to full participation, stopping disclosure of police apprehensions under mental health acts for «police record checks,» aligning legislation and policies with the UN Convention on the Rights of Person with Disabilities, moving away from methods of seclusion and restraint, and supporting advocacy.

Last year London's mayor, Boris Johnson, effectively voiced support for this point of view, writing in The Telegraph that: «At present that law is being systematically broken — or at least circumvented — by the use of the Uber app», and adding: «Until Parliament has the guts to change the law we must uphold the existing and long - standing legal distinctions between black cabs and minicabs.»

I'm not knowledgeable regarding the legal standing of such a statement, but your comment above... «The point here, of course is, that if significant time and money is spent by a cooperative joint venture, should (and under what terms) the Tribunal or the courts be permitted to grant access?»

The real puppet - masters of our governments are called deputy ministers, unelected civil servants of long standing who are relied upon by ministers and prime ministers alike for guidance re policy intitatives... they hold much influence from a mercenary point of view within the maleable minds of the coming and going elected officials, The same situation exists with CREA vis a vis (I couldn't resist Alberta Legal) the revolving door of «leaders» without real power.

So how do the parties stand from a legal point of view?