Sentences with phrase «legal wrong done to»

Not exact matches

Trump's legal team was initially looking at a number of options to avoid having the president submit to a face - to - face sit down with the special counsel, including providing written responses to questions and submitting an affidavit saying Trump did nothing wrong.

the same priests that take an oath under God to do good mispresent themselves again and again its morally not right» anybody under legal law to be molested in the name of religion is wrong dead wrong and the point is a pedaphile can never be cured sp whats the alternative (death that way innocence is not lost on bottom dweelers) i say feet first in a meat grinder in low gear i'm just saying

So even though I think abortion is morally wrong in most cases, and support more legal restrictions around it, I often vote for pro-choice candidates when I think their policies will do the most to address the health and economic concerns that drive women to get abortions in the first place.

In a country with two parallel legal systems, appeals to secular courts to right such wrongs are often referred back to the Shari`ah authorities, who don't grant permission to convert but instead punish apostates.

he CHOSE to serve time because he felt guilty for what he did (after becoming saved he knew it was wrong even though it had been legal at the time).

Unless you fear for your life, doing a vanishing act, leaving a note, or doing it in an explosion or in a mean way not only is the wrong way, but it will likely make the divorce process even more miserable for you (your spouse will still have a numerous chances to get even during the legal process, and during any interactions thereafter — few can go through the rest of their lives without having some necessary contact with a former spouse).

If you have family that don't support or friends it's another great book to either show them or just read to your child so they don't feel like nursing is wrong because it's completely normal and nursing uncovered is 100 % ok and legal.

In his view, government must show more concern for local businesses and that should mean separating illegal miners from legal miners and allowing the latter to freely operate because they have done nothing wrong.

Last month, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Silver's conviction for doing favors on behalf of a cancer researcher and developer who funneled $ 4 million legal referral fees to the former speaker, ruling the jury instructions were wrong and Silver was entitled to a new trial.

not do primary according to law which the court said no it is wrong of them to have challenged the primary of APC but in a situation of this nature when that thing happened in 2014/2015 and the National legal adviser insisted that constitution be followed, why in 2017 we are now doing it contrary to the constitution again?

@endolith - my understanding is that impeachment does not have to fit a specific legal code crime, but I could be wrong.

Just a few days after the US Attorney for the Southern District absolved Governor Cuomo of any wrong - doing resulting from the Moreland Commission shutdown, Astorino steered thousands of dollars in lucrative legal contracts to many of his campaign donors.

«Although Mr. Walker has done nothing wrong, securing immunity was without question the only appropriate legal procedure to take,» Griffin said.

If she had gone on that trail, all you could be doing is to challenge her on the basis of legal and judicial arguments and not the ethnocentric... it is because she threw the thing in that realm that is why she got it wrong,» charged Mr. Baako stated.

«The governor does what he wants to do whenever he wants to, whether it's right or wrong and whether its legal or illegal,» DeFrancisco said.

Scientists doing dual use research — beneficial work that may be misapplied for malicious purposes in the wrong hands — need more tools to help them understand the scientific, ethical and legal issues surrounding their work, according to a AAAS - sponsored workshop report.

Preparing a pre-filled syringe could also open doctors and pharmacists up to legal challenges if something did go wrong with the medication, Dr. Lanier adds.

Back in 2002 a group of educational travel companies came together and pioneered a robust verification scheme which featured an audit of all members every year by independent experts By measuring against a comprehensive code of practice that had been developed with, amongst others, health & safety experts, teachers» unions», head teachers» associations, outdoor advisors and top legal advice, the audit ensures all aspects of a company's business was examined, this includes worldwide health & safety management, financial security, consumer protection, fair terms and conditions and, for when it does go wrong, a commitment to independent arbitration.

I also know that justice isn't blind and that our current legal system and society presume guilt not innocence with an arrest (if you're arrested you must have done something wrong), so I'd also hope that I'd be able to get the best defense possible to ensure that said family member receives a fair trial.

I don't think it's wrong in a legal or moral sense — Amazon is free to run their business as they choose.

In an email addressed to «Authors, Illustrators and Agents» Macmillan CEO John Sargent wrote that he believed the company had done nothing wrong and could still win the case, but the risk of losing the legal battle had become too high.

And then, when nothing does happen, it can feel like you paid up that money for nothing... that is, until something goes wrong, and then you're hit with thousands of dollars in everything from emergency room bills, to auto body repairs or even legal fees.

The reason is that there are so many risks: government regulations of short - selling (SEC Rule 204), special government regulations put in place during market panics (e.g. the 2008 SEC ban on short selling financials), forced buy - ins, unlimited losses, debt to the brokerage, interest one is charged for being short which can vary arbitrarily, brokerages could change margin requirements to any arbitrary amount, arbitration clauses, you agree to indemnify the brokerage for anything it did even if it did the wrong thing, some brokerages also do market - making and thus have further incentive to fleece the client, and all the other «screw you» legal language that you agreed to when opening an account.

(So, I guess what I'm trying to say is, though some legal arguments can be made in favor of LPs, that doesn't mean a company can't or won't challenge the use of their IP, or that they are even wrong in claiming infringement.)

But, Dranias wrote, «If there is no legal theory that can justify BBATF's position, I personally do believe it would be morally wrong to propagate it — especially to the exclusion of other efforts.

If I decide to say that the reason that Spencer is so often wrong is that «Roy W. Spencer is insane due to an advanced, untreated case of syphilis» then that would likely be libel per se, but I am not actually claiming that his many errors have occurred because «Roy W. Spencer is insane due to syphilis,» I'm just noting that as a hypothetical example that would be libel per se if I did say it, to show how inaccurately that legal jargon is being bandied about here.

«The EPA has a legal duty to issue the kind of regulation it did and so if the EPA decides to fulfill that legal duty in a different way, it has to explain why it was wrong the first time and to explain why the other way is better.»

EDIT: Our knowledge of legal systems is very limited and some of the first attempts we tried so far resulted with statements that are putting in question our right to claim ownership over user - generated content so we wanted to quickly check if we are doing something obviously wrong.

We have talked about how legal tech often focuses on the wrong problems and that one of the things we should be doing is working to better access and wrangle big data.

Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, alluded to this in his speech at the Legal Wales Conference 2014 on 10 October: «The academics debate whether it is conceivable that Parliament would enact a law which was so contrary to principle that the courts would ignore it — eg a law which prevents citizens from challenging any decision of a government department in the courts... I profoundly hope that it is an issue which never has to be tested, not least because, if it does, something will already have gone very wrong with our system of government.»

This is a conversation we need to keep having in the legal profession, because in this case, in particular, clinging to precedent, as we've been trained, is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Don't get me wrong with what I'm about to write, because I applaud Miller and other online, virtual legal service pioneers for making divorce faster, cheaper and more accessible to the thousands of clients who otherwise could not afford the services of a lawyer.

A case before the society of lawyer Donald Gurney, who is accused of allowing $ 25 million in offshore money to flow through his trust account without doing substantial legal work for the client, is being treated as a violation of the society's rule that you can't be involved in transactions that may assist a client in doing something wrong — not as money laundering, says Van Ommen.

But, again, even if the employer misuses the information that the employer receives, that doesn't mean that someone who provided truthful information to your employer has any legal responsibility whatsoever to you or that the person providing the tip has done anything legally wrong in any way.

I would consider that if you wear a t - shirt like this as a joke, and you have the bad luck to run into a situation where resuscitation is needed, and the person in question gets the legal question wrong and doesn't resuscitate, then the legal question is quite irrelevant, because you are not able to sue them.

Finally, don't take me wrong, I wish you the best in your efforts to improve the legal system.

I don't imagine that Quicklaw or the Canadian Encyclopedic Digest will have much on this question (although no doubt some witty legal scholar can prove me wrong), so I will need to look elsewhere.

Of course, one mustn't go to extremes and it would be wrong to suggest that customers should be ignored and shunned (some legal publishers find and take many other opportunities to do that!).

Yet whether the driver was the parties themselves or their choice to rely on the legal advice they received (which in one party's case was declared to be substantially wrong, despite being given in good faith) does not matter.

As this and other cases show, the positive obligations to consider settlement and engage in mediation require parties and counsel to do so in good faith, but not necessarily to compromise their legal position, no matter how wrong it may ultimately be.

The goal would be to positively make a difference in the day - to - day lives of our own prospective clients that have experienced a wrongful death or injury due to the wrong doing of any business, governing administration or even an individual as well as really upholding their legal rights under the law.

This type of claim alleges that a legal «wrong» has been done by a Defendant to a Claimant, and if successful the Court will award damages depending on how serious the damage caused by the «wrong» is.

If an individual decision is wrong on a point of law, there is often no continuing damage done to the general legal principle because other arbitrators are unlikely to hear of that arbitral decision and are not obliged to follow it even if they do.

«So something goes wrong, and we don't have in place the necessary co-operation agreements with Chinese regulators, and nobody really understands how you go about getting information from Chinese banks or what the legal regime is to enforce claims there.»

Hence, recent trends towards placing greater responsibility upon companies by means of legal regulation are designed to «persuade» them to develop practices and due diligence - based systems, which are aimed at making wrong - doing less likely.

The legal profession does not agree about what exactly is meant by «injury to Aboriginal culture,» what are the defining characteristics of the wrong, what theories of liability support it, how causation may be determined, where the chain of causation ends and how damages should be conceived and calculated.

So what does CMS» decision — and I'm not saying it's the wrong decision, by the way, nor a unique one in the legal profession — say about the value of the brands it has chosen to leave by the wayside (ie Olswang and Nabarro).

Design patterns for contracts: or how you've been doing contracts wrong this whole time (and how to fix it), (invited guest blog post, co-authored with Margaret Hagan) Juro Better legal design blog post, February 5, 2018.

In an increasingly sophisticated legal services market, the directories should not be getting this quite as wrong as they seem to quite as often, and, in so doing, make a terrible rod for their own backs.

We don't need a data - driven study to see that legal marketing advice is almost always either (1) flat out wrong, or (2) misleading.