Sentences with phrase «limit judicial power»

But I would have thought that no less, and perhaps more, important is the need to limit judicial power.

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»)

At the request of a person directly affected by the exercise of a power, a court may conduct a so - called judicial review to determine whether the exercise of a public power on a given occasion is, or is not, within the limits of the power.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Alaska injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

mere judicial power, upon the other departments of this Government and the States of this Union the recognition of the existence of nations and States within the limits of both, possessing dominion and jurisdiction paramount to the Federal and State Constitutions.

The legislation, which limits judicial discretion to grant extra credit for pre-sentence custody, restricts judges» power to address certain inequities in the administration of justice, such as -LSB-...]

In this post, international commercial litigator Steven Loble discusses recent case, Singularis Holdings Ltd. v PricewaterhouseCoopers, in which the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is the ultimate court of appeal for UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies, and for some Commonwealth countries, set out the limits of a court's power to assist in obtaining evidence...

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Georgia injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

On the other, limiting the power of withdrawal opens the door to judicial review which would require the Court to develop criteria for the limits of withdrawal.

She declined to weigh in on whether corporations have too much control over the Internet, how she defines «judicial activism,» and whether there are any limits on Congress» power to protect voting rights.

The majority differs from the dissenting view principally on the basis of the weight attached to legislative intention; it is no accident, say Kay and Pitchford LJJ, that the grant of draconian powers deemed to be necessary to combat terrorism is couched in a procedure where judicial supervision is limited.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Tennessee injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Missouri injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a California injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a North Carolina injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

Beyond these powers we must not go; we must scrupulously observe the narrow limits of judicial authority even though self - restraint is alone set over us.

On so grave a subject as this, I feel obliged to say that, in my opinion, such an exertion of judicial power transcends the limits of the authority of the court as described by its repeated decisions, and as I understand, acknowledged in this opinion of the majority of the court.

As to whether a judicial power is «limited» (and can thus safely be vested in a non-judicial body), the main source of litigation has been professional disciplinary functions.

The hierarchical relationship between the judiciary and court users, and the power of a judicial officer in court, severely limit the acceptability of judicial humour.

The KBA argues that the Judicial Conduct Commission has no power to limit the involvement of the KBA is reviewing the conduct of judges.

«The hearing fees,» he concludes, «are a financing mechanism and do not go to the very existence of the court as a judicial body or limit the types of powers it may exercise» (par.

Enforcing limits on the power of government, as judicial review does, and perhaps especially enforcing limits set up by federal constitutions, insofar as they circumscribe the powers of centralized governments, helps preserve foot - voting and market - choice opportunities.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a foreign injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

One commenter argued that the provision would limit the scope of the Inspector General's subpoena power for judicial and administrative proceedings to information concerning a litigant whose health condition or history is at issue, and would impose a requirement that the Inspector General provide a written certification to that effect.

Judicial Power's account: The Supreme Court ignores the limits of the judicial role by rewriting the Freedom of Information Act to effectively remove the power to prevent the publication of information that the UK Parliament had conferred on the Attorney Judicial Power's account: The Supreme Court ignores the limits of the judicial role by rewriting the Freedom of Information Act to effectively remove the power to prevent the publication of information that the UK Parliament had conferred on the Attorney GenPower's account: The Supreme Court ignores the limits of the judicial role by rewriting the Freedom of Information Act to effectively remove the power to prevent the publication of information that the UK Parliament had conferred on the Attorney judicial role by rewriting the Freedom of Information Act to effectively remove the power to prevent the publication of information that the UK Parliament had conferred on the Attorney Genpower to prevent the publication of information that the UK Parliament had conferred on the Attorney General.

The real significance of the case, however, was that it was another in the line of important judicial decisions over the centuries as to the limits of the powers of the executive.

The executive branch wants to curtail judicial power, but is hopefully limited by the Constitution in what it can do.

Over the past year I've written about the Emoluments Clause; the No Religious Tests clause; limits on presidential power as defined in the steel seizure case; the meaning of the oath of office; how the Appropriations Clause constrains lawsuit settlements involving the federal government; how and whether gerrymandering by race and for partisan advantage affects constitutional rights; judicial independence; the decline and fall of the Contracts Clause; the application of Obergefell to issues of public employees and birth certificates; Article V procedure for calling a new constitutional convention; and too many First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment controversies to list.

If, then, a government, composed of legislative, executive and judicial departments, were established by a constitution which imposed no limits on the legislative power, the consequence would inevitably be that whatever the legislative power chose to enact would be lawfully enacted, and the judicial power could never interpose to pronounce it void.