Sentences with phrase «majority judgment of the court»

Saraki's appeal filed through his lead counsel, Mr. Joseph Daudu (SAN), is challenging the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal in Abuja delivered on October 30, 2015, which affirmed the jurisdiction of the CCT to try him and the competence of the charges of false assets declaration preferred against him by the Federal Government.

In Ferrara v. Lorenzetti, Wolfe6, the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal (Laskin and Sharpe, J.J.A.) held the plaintiff's claim against the defendant solicitor was NOT statute barred.

Not exact matches

The opinions collected here» some dissenting from the majority of the Court, others concurring in judgment but rejecting the majority's reasoning» show how Scalia applies his textualism to these issues, and how it differs from competing theories of interpretation, most notably the «living Constitution» view favored by many on the left and the varieties of intentionalism favored by many conservatives and moderates.

While it will now be more likely that the justices will divide evenly on difficult cases, Justice Kennedy will remain the swing vote, providing a fifth vote for a majority of progressive justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan), and remaining with the conservatives (Thomas, Roberts and Alito) in tie votes, which will leave the lower court's judgment in place and will not operate as binding precedent on lower courts.

The Supreme Court had in its judgment in the appeal numbered SC / 133/2017 nullified the earlier majority judgment of the Port Harcourt Division of the Court of Appeal, of February 17, 2017 recognising Sheriff as the authentic chairman of the party.

According to an order for declaratory judgment which was sent by Rosenblum to a New York state Supreme Court judge on Oct. 17, the mayor will seek to nullify a decision by the Democratic majority of Leon Potok, David Finch and Ilissa Miller on the village board to authorize a ballot referendum that — if passed by public vote on Election Day — would restrict Rosenblum's ability to appoint a village attorney as well as certain land use board members.

In a judgment that sets a far - reaching constitutional precedent and upholds parliamentary sovereignty, the court ruled by a majority of eight justices to three that MPs and peers must give their consent before the government can trigger article 50 and formally initiate Brexit.

[169] I would have thought that the overwhelming majority of documents on Litigator are the product of judgment and skill, especially since Thomson advertised this feature in promoting litigator, but, nevertheless, Thomson is entitled to assert that a particular document is not subject to copyright protection, and it can not be simply assumed that originality exists in all of the court documents available on Litigator...

Neither Kimbrough nor Spears authorized district courts to categorically reject the policy judgments of the Sentencing Commission in areas outside of crack - cocaine offenses, as the majority suggests.

Most famously, in Chevron v. NRDC, Justice Stevens» wrote a majority opinion for the Court that sternly rebuked the D.C. Circuit for substituting its judgment for that of the Reagan EPA, which sought to give industry more flexibility in meeting their Clean Air Act obligations.

A majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a judgment of the Alberta Provincial Court (Chrumka J.) declaring the appellant, Derek Dwight Bruce, guilty on counts of breaking and entering, committing assault causing bodily harm and possession of a weapon.

The majority judgment clarified the relationship between specific provisions allowing a tax deduction or other benefit and the general anti-avoidance section by reference to the Court of Appeal's judgment in Commissioner of Inland Revenue v BNZ Investments Ltd by concluding «it is only if a specific provision on its true construction and application was intended to give the particular transaction the tax benefit claimed that it will fall outside the areas of application of s 99».

In Tannadyce, the Supreme Court in the majority judgment of Blanchard, Tipping and Gault JJ (delivered by Tipping J) confined judicial review to cases where the taxpayer was unable to bring its grievance within the statutory process.

We are waiting to hear whether the judgment will be appealed to the Supreme Court, following the 2:1 majority decision of the Court of Appeal that the exceptional funding scheme is not unlawful.

The full judgment of the Supreme Court, per Karakatsanis J. is: «The majority of the Court is of the view that the appeal should be dismissed, substantially for the reasons of Harrington J.A., 2015 NLCA 60, 371 Nfld.

In Canada, the recent majority judgment in Quebec (Attorney General) v. A., 2013 SCC 5, more commonly known as Eric v. Lola, is also an instance of Supreme Court justices deferring to the Quebec legislature's choice to draw a distinction between treatment of common law and married spouses.

On Friday, January 25, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in a tight majority judgment (five: McLachlin, Deschamps, Abella, Cromwell and Karakatsanis, against four: LeBel, Fish, Rothstein and Moldaver) that the Quebec Civil Code discriminates against common - law spouses because it does not grant them the same rights as married couples in regard to spousal support and division of property.

For a Majority of the Court of Appeal (judgment was delivered from the bench), it is consistent with the public interest that they be allowed to put old obligations behind them, and get on with their economic lives: «If participation in that type of corporate reorganization had the effect of reviving statute barred debts, no such re-organizations would be practical, and the whole purpose of the limitation statute would be defeated.»

«The majority opinion reflects the persistent disregard in a number of judgments that this Court has issued of the clear and unequivocal directions of the Supreme Court of Canada that emphasize the importance of individualized sentencing and limit appellate intervention in the exercise of sentencing discretion by trial judges.

The majority judgment in J.A. also responded to the arguments in favour of permitting advance consent, including those relied on by a majority of the Ontario Court of Appeal and the dissenting justices at the Supreme Court (Justices Fish, Binnie and LeBel).

Chief Justice O'Connor's majority opinion reasoned that a lack of standing to invoke jurisdiction was not a defect in the trial court's «subject matter jurisdiction,» and, therefore, any lack of standing had to be raised during the case or in a direct appeal from the judgment.

In my judgment, the opinion of the majority of the court in that case is in conflict with its previous decisions, with a great weight of judicial authority in other slaveholding States, and with fundamental principles of private international law.

(d) After hearing and consideration en banc, the judgment of the majority of the members of this Court participating in the case shall be entered as the judgment of this Court.

The other judgment of today confirmed the Court's view that there was power in the Supreme Court to so order — again by a majority.

The slim majority judgment (5 - 4) written by Justice Andromache Karakatsanis reverses the Court of Appeal on both its standard of review analysis and on the merits of the case by restoring the assessment review board decision.

The judgment confirmed that although ordinarily loan repayments would be brought into account in an action by a lender against the negligent adviser, indeed this was the position maintained by the dissenting Judge, Lord Justice Davis, the majority of the Court of Appeal held that this principle did not apply in this case.

In many respects the changing attitude toward international law, headed by the House of Lords under the unmistakable leadership of Lord Bingham, has provided an example for other national courts (NCs) to follow, starting in 2004 with the so - called Belmarsh Detainees judgment, that stunning 8 - 1 majority declaration that found the detention of foreign suspected terrorists incompatible with the Human Rights Act.

In summary, the Court has (by majority of 8 to 3) dismissed the Government's appeal against the Divisional Court's judgment, and has ruled that the Government has no power under -LSB-...]

In our view, the Supreme Court judgment means that the majority of disabled people in residential settings are deprived of their liberty and this deprivation therefore falls to be justified by the state demonstrating that such arrangements are in the person's best interests.

By a majority of 4:1 the Court of Appeal judgment was reversed and the case sent back for a retrial with a jury.

The defendant's appeal to the Court of Appeal was allowed on a majority judgment on the basis that: l The question was whether or not a joint intention could properly be inferred from the parties» conduct since separation that, over time, the 50/50 split would be varied so that the property was currently held 90 % by the claimant and 10 % by the defendant.

And in, Canada (Attorney General) v. Federation of Law Societies of Canada, 2015 SCC 7, [2015] 1 SCR 401, although the Supreme Court of Canada found it unnecessary to determine whether the wider definition of, «the independence of the bar,» is a «principle of fundamental justice» (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms section 7), i.e., that lawyers, «are free from incursions from any source, including from public authorities,» the majority judgment of Cromwell J., held that the narrower definition is a principle of fundamental justice, i.e., «that the state can not impose duties on lawyers that interfere with their duty of commitment to advancing their clients» legitimate interests.»

The majority of situations require a necessary exercise of judgment when determining what should and should not be included in affidavit materials before the court.

The test, as the majority judgment and the dissent agree is that there must be enough evidence in the file to allow the appellate court to rule on the new issue, and the failure to raise it at first instance can not be the result of a strategic choice by the party that seeks to raise it on appeal.

Third, the trial judge and majority judgment in the Court of Appeal applied the principle of good faith performance of contractual obligations.

Judges contribute to manydecisions through their participation on panels, through the circulate - and - revise process, and through their minority reasons, but they are generally remembered for the majority judgments that they delivered on behalf of the Court.

In its judgment, while the majority of the Court supported a finding of arbitrary detention, they unanimously found that this breach was not sufficiently eggregious to warrant exclusion of evidence under section 24 (2) of the Charter.

So witnesses, defendants and even victims may all be bound - over, with the important caveat that they must have been adjudged to have engaged in conduct that was criminal or immoral or, as the Divisional Court eloquently puts it, engaged in «wrong [conduct] rather than right in the judgment of the majority of contemporary citizens» (see Hughes v Holley (1987) 86 Cr App R 130, [1987] Crim LR 253).

This is arguably because the case shows one of the benefits of the reconstituted Supreme Court (sitting with more justices, here seven) without the supposed complementary benefit of a change in decision making (consolidation into one overall judgment or, at worst, one majority and one dissenting).

As Rimer LJ explained in his trenchant lead judgment for the majority in the Court of Appeal, this approach was inconsistent with the principle in Salomon — a principle which, he noted, «applies as much in the disposition of ancillary relief proceedings as in other proceedings».

In Scott v Harris (2007) 127 S Ct 1769, on 30 April 2007, Justice Scalia was in the majority when the Supreme Court overruled a lower court decision — on a claim for damages by a motor accident victim following a high speed police chase — that summary judgment was not available on the issue of whether or not the conduct of the police was laCourt overruled a lower court decision — on a claim for damages by a motor accident victim following a high speed police chase — that summary judgment was not available on the issue of whether or not the conduct of the police was lacourt decision — on a claim for damages by a motor accident victim following a high speed police chase — that summary judgment was not available on the issue of whether or not the conduct of the police was lawful.

In two linked judgments, nine justices held by majority that the Treasury must lift sanctions against the bank, dismissing claims that its banking services facilitated Iran's nuclear programme, and said appeal courts should go into closed session only where «it has been convincingly demonstrated to be genuinely necessary in the interests of justice».

However, the majority of the Court (Justices Slatter and O'Brien) ruled that summary judgment was not available to the Nunavut Tunngavik Inc (NTI) in this case and that consequently damages must still be assessed following the trial...

In his 8 October speech entitled «Dissenting Judgments — Self Indulgence or Self Sacrifice», Lord justice Kerr of the UK Supreme Court poses this interesting question: «Should the possible future utility of a dissent encourage, or should the apparent futility of a dissent deter an expression of disagreement with the majority?

Auld LJ did not concur with the submissions of Mrs Lawrence that the Court of Appeal should try to develop the common law incrementally and in an evolutionary way by recognising such a duty of care to not only children but parents too «by those publicly responsible for the safety and well - being of children when investigating and / or taking steps to avert the risk of parental abuse», and that the House of Lords majority judgment in East Berkshire was «too narrowly based».

Today, the majority on a divided three - judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued this decision affirming the district court's judgCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued this decision affirming the district court's judgcourt's judgment.

(3) After receiving the opinions, the justice must pronounce judgment in accordance with the opinions of the majority and that judgment constitutes the delivery of the judgment of the court.

In characterising the inter-tidal zone, the courts followed the majority reasoning in the Full Court judgment of Risk.66 In that case, the issue was whether the seabed of bays and gulfs beyond the low water mark could be the subject of a claim under the ALRA; that is, whether it was classified as «land in the Northern Territory».67 The majority judgment in Risk concluded that it was not.

The judgment criticised the majority decision in Yarmirr for not looking at the ALRA when determining the nature of inter-tidal zone rights attached to land granted under the ALRA.62 The court said: 63

If the Judges constituting the Court for the purposes of any proceedings are divided in opinion as to the judgment to be pronounced, judgment shall be pronounced according to the opinion of the majority, if there is a majority, but, if the Judges are equally divided in opinion: