Sentences with phrase «majority of defendants»

In an indication of the tough justice being meted out to people accused of offences related to this week's riots, a Guardian analysis of more than 120 cases before magistrates courts so far has found the majority of defendants being remanded in custody — even when they have pleaded guilty to relatively minor offences.

We don't often hear about hidden assets in personal injury lawsuits, but that's because the majority of defendants aren't independently wealthy.

This matters because the majority of defendants — a 2014 study put it at 80 percent — use some kind of indigent defense.

The basis of ground (b) was that the majority of the Defendants» sales occurred in China, whereas only a small proportion occurred in the United Kingdom and thus the centre of the dispute from the point of view of commercial significance was based in China.

The vast majority of defendants in Orleans Parish who are released from jail under financial conditions purchase bail bonds.

The vast majority of defendants coming before the courts are suffering from addiction, poverty or mental ill - health — very often they suffer from all three.

Of the 150 cases before magistrates courts so far, the majority of defendants were remanded in custody despite pleaded guilty to relatively minor offences.

Not exact matches

«Sadly, it is unsurprising that of all of the individuals and entities to whom Soundview owes money, the defendant and his immediate family received the majority of Soundview's last funds and apparently did so without having to justify their claims to it,» Assistant U.S. Attorneys Carolyn Pokorny, Roger Burlingame and Todd Kaminsky wrote.

According to a summary of the indictment, provided to reporters, «the majority of sales took place in broad daylight in residential neighborhoods in Harlem and East Harlem... the defendants received more than $ 52,000 as a result of the firearms purchases during the investigation.»

«To the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the Plaintiff [Dominic Ayine] brought this action in his name fronting for the immediate past Government to set at naught the popular wishes of the majority of the Ghanaian electorate who see the President's acceptance of the nomination of the 2nd Defendant [Martin Amidu] as Special Prosecutor, as being in the national interest to attack the canker of corruption in the body politic,» Martin Amidu indicated in his affidavit verification sighted by Citi News.

If a majority of the Board considers that the charges allege such conduct, the Board shall order a hearing and shall appoint a hearing committee of not less than three and not more than nine members of the Club having no direct personal involvement in the issues to be heard, and shall fix a date and time for such hearing at a place within the region where the defendant resides.

If a majority of the Board considers that the charges, if proved, might constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the Club or the Breed, the Board shall order a hearing committee of not less than three and not more than nine members of the Club having no direct personal involvement in the issues to be heard, and shall fix a date and time for such hearing at a place within the region where the defendant resides.

Should the charges be sustained after hearing all the evidence and testimony presented by complainant and defendant, the Board or Committee may by a majority vote of those present reprimand (a written reprimand directed exclusively to the member may be somewhat detailed but an official (published) reprimand should only indicate that subsequent to a board hearing»... member (X) was officially reprimanded as a result of charges filed by member (Y) or suspend the defendant from all privileges of the club for not more than six months from the date of the hearing, or until the next Annual Meeting, if that will occur after six months.

Should the charges be sustained, after hearing all the evidence and testimony presented by complainant and defendant, the Board may by a majority vote of those present reprimand or suspend the defendant from all privileges of the Club for not more than six (6) months from the date of the hearing.

Should the charges be sustained after hearing all the evidence and testimony presented by complainant and defendant, the Board or committee may by a majority vote of those present, suspend the defendant from all privileges of the Club for 12 months.

Should the charges be sustained after hearing all the evidence and testimony presented by complainant and defendant, the board may by a majority vote of those present reprimand (a reprimand is a written warning to a member after charges have been filed in accordance with the bylaws, and it is determined that the member's conduct was not severe enough to warrant a suspension or a recommendation for expulsion) or suspend the defendant from all privileges of the club for not more than six months from the date of the hearing.

Should the charges be sustained after hearing all the evidence and testimony presented by complainant and defendant, the Board or committee may by a majority vote of those present suspend the defendant from all privileges of the Club for not more than six months from the date of the hearing, or until the next Annual Meeting if that will occur after six months.

Should the charges be sustained after hearing all the evidence and testimony presented by complainant and defendant, the Board or Committee may, by a majority vote of those present, suspend the defendant from all privileges of the Club for not more than six months from the date of the hearing, or until the next annual meeting if that will occur after six months.

Should the charges be sustained, after hearing all the evidence and testimony presented by complainant and defendant, the Board or Committee may by a majority vote suspend the defendant from all privileges of the Club for not more than six months from the date of the hearing.

Should the charges be sustained after hearing all the evidence and testimony presented by complainant and defendant, the Board or Committee may by a majority vote of those present reprimand the defendant, or suspend the defendant from all privileges of the Club for not more than six (6) months from the date of the hearing or until the next annual meeting if it will occur after six (6) months.

Should charges be sustained, after hearing all evidence and testimony presented by complainant and defendant, the Board may, by majority vote of those present, suspend the defendant from all privileges of Bloodhounds West for not more than six months from the date of the hearing.

In Chester, if one takes the majority and dissent speeches (reasons for judgment) at face value — the split was 3 - 2 — the plaintiff succeeded on the normative basis that the duty of care in issue was so important that that justified dispensing completely with any requirement for a causal connection between the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's injury.

It knows as both the legal aid funder of clinical negligence litigation and as the defendant compensator (as it is in the vast majority of clinical negligence cases) that access to justice is extremely costly to it in costs and damages, and that by attacking access to justice its outlay in both regards will be reduced substantially.

FWIW, this is much more generous than under U.S. law in which no compensation of any kind is payable to an acquitted criminal defendant in the vast majority of cases either by the government or by an accuser.

As with the majority of crimes, once a defendant has been arrested for domestic assault they will be taken into police custody and booked into the system.

However, the majority noted this general rule has been held not to apply when the suicide «is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligent conduct.»

The Defendant accepted the majority of the blame for the accident, but argued that the Plaintiff should be 10 - 20 % responsible for failing to avoid his vehicle, which was a visible and foreseeable risk to her.

The majority also insists that the procedural rule confirmed in Vonner somehow eliminates the need for a contextual inquiry when determining the sufficiency of a defendant's objection, despite the fact that Vonner explicitly requires us to conduct such a contextual review when evaluating the sufficiency of the district court's sentencing pronouncement.

He has frequently been the lone dissenter, particularly in criminal cases where he writes in favor of the defendant, even when the arguments arrayed against his position are so formidable that his colleagues have joined the majority and moved on.

The most serious issues arise in one of the situations that Justice Sotomayor addresses which the majority does not adequately consider in the rebuttal in its own opinion, which is the situation where there are multiple possible defendants with different home states, whose relative liability is unknown or independent or mutually dependent.

From more than 30 years of trying federal cases, I believe the majority of evidence favorable to defendants is found in such reports.

We merely reaffirm what we have held before and what an overwhelming majority of American jurisdictions understand in practice: a criminal defendant's initial appearance before a judicial officer, where he learns the charge against him and his liberty is subject to restriction, marks the start of adversary judicial proceedings that trigger attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

Unlike lawyers who represent the vast majority of criminal defendants, Côté had at her disposal the most powerful resources of state to prosecute her case.

If, for example, the party responsible for the majority of the injury is unable to pay the damages, the other defendants are not required to «pick up» that portion of the damages to ensure that the victim is fully compensated.

But how much impact will these rulings have for the majority of criminal defendants whose employer isn't contractually obligated to pay for their defense or who lack the money to hire the lawyer of their choice?

In yesterday's Supreme Court decision in US v. Gonzalez, a 5 - 4 majority decision authored by Scalia overturned a conviction where the Court denied the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to representation by the lawyer of his choice.

«The lesson for plaintiffs is,» said Randall L. Kiser, a co-author of the study and principal analyst at litigation consulting firm DecisionSet, «in the vast majority of cases, they are perceiving the defendant's offer to be half a loaf when in fact it is an entire loaf or more.»

(Order, p. 2) As the court notes in its summary of the order, an acquittal can issue either when a jury returns a not - guilty verdict, or «when a trial court grants a defendant's new trial motion for evidentiary insufficiency... or dismisses a case... for evidentiary insufficiency» (Id., pp. 2 — 3) The essence of the court's decision is in two parts: (1) The new trial motion should not have been granted because there was sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Stern on counts of conspiracy; and (2) Because the trial court did not rule on the majority of the issues raised in Stern's motion for a new trial, those issues have yet to be decided, and should be addressed on remand by the court of appeals.

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.

The limitation for this cause of action will not begin to run against the infant plaintiff until he reaches the age of majority on February 2, 2012 and it seems to be the defendant is no more prejudiced by a stay of proceedings then he would be had the plaintiff waited until then to commence this action.

The majority of the court has rejected defendant's sentencing arguments that the sentence was unreasonable because there was insufficient evidence to convict him and, separately, that the fact of the sentence disparity between defendant and Lugo itself establishes that the sentence is unreasonable.

A complete reading of the majority decision as well as the subsequent interpretation of that decision in R. v. La leads us to conclude that Carosella must be limited to its peculiar circumstances, being the deliberate destruction of records, for the purpose of ensuring that the records would be unavailable to assist a certain class of defendant.

Did CJ Roberts» vote for defendant Cunningham at the Justices» private conference right after oral argument and then assign the opinion Justice Ginsburg OR was CJ Roberts» initially with the dissent until he saw that the majority opinion had the weight of nearly all recent precedents on its side?

(In the long run, that would also benefit Apple, which is a defendant in the vast majority of patent cases that it's a party to.)

The vast majority of New Orleans personal injury lawsuits involve the pursuit of damages through a defendant's insurer.

The defendants brought a motion to have the plaintiff's claim stayed, arguing that the action should be heard in Israel, as the majority of the publication of the article was in Israel, and only 200 - 300 persons in Canada read the English online article.

If the lower court finds that there was a systemic breakdown affecting this particular defendant, an indigent Vietnamese immigrant who allegedly killed another Vietnamese man and his 2 - year - old son and severely injured the man's wife in execution - style, back - of - the - head shootings, Justice Harold D. Melton wrote for the majority in the 4 - 3 decision, then that determination must be factored into an analysis of whether the defendant's speedy trial rights were violated.

A similarly worded expression is found in that part of the majority opinion sustaining the overruling of the defendants» general demurrer to the indictment.

The majority concludes a judge may impose an exceptional minimum sentence on the basis of an aggravating factor neither found by the jury nor admitted by the defendant.

The majority opinion by Justice Ginsburg accords with the principle of defendant autonomy, and the long - standing maxim that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a personal defense.