Sentences with phrase «majority opinion stated»

Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion stated the rule was not «narrowly tailored» to preserve judicial impartiality because it focused on issues instead of on particular litigants.

Disagreeing with the dissent, the majority opinion stated that no Texas appellate court had recognized the cause of action.

Not exact matches

Rah adds: «Contrary to popular opinion, the church is not dying in America; its is alive and well, but it is alive and well among the immigrant and ethnic minority communities and not among the majority white churches in the United States.»

A legal analysis by Managing Your Church, a CT sister site, looks at the uncertainty created for churches and pastors because the majority opinion «stopped short of stating a religious exemption.»

Most notably, Abrams v. United States (1919) was a turning point when Justice Holmes dissented against the majority opinion which charged four radicals with the Espionage Act, which made it a crime to publish «abusive language» about the Constitution or the armed forces (Lewis 28).

As Justice Powell explained in the majority opinion in Wayte v. United States 470 U.S. 598 (1985):

The majority opinion also criticizes DOMA as an intrusion on states» traditional role defining marriage.»

The average New Yorker knows a minimum wage increase would be beneficial to the state's economy; that's why two recent public opinion polls showed sizable majorities of New Yorkers — 62 % (Quinnipiac) and 59 % (Siena)-- support Governor Cuomo's proposal for a $ 15 minimum wage.

David Lewis, counsel to Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan, released an opinion declaring the payments as «proper under the authority of the New York State Constitution.»

«So long as a State has «redistricted in the manner provided by the law thereof» — as Arizona did by utilizing the independent commission procedure in its Constitution — the resulting redistricting plan becomes the presumptively governing map,» Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the majority opinion.

A large majority of Americans — including gun owners — continue to support stronger policies to prevent gun violence than are present in current federal and most state law, according to a new national public opinion survey conducted by researchers with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Bloomberg School of Public Health.

In our opinion, eHarmony is a go - to for finding a long - term commitment — as that's what a majority, if not all, of the members are looking for and the site is responsible for 4 % of marriages in the United States.

Chief Justice Barbara J. Pariente wrote in the majority opinion that the vouchers violate the state...

The plaintiffs, according to Justice Alito's majority opinion, were not «full - fledged» because they were supervised by private individuals, in this case the patients receiving care, and merely received compensation from the state.

In considering whether Arizona was meeting the requirements of the EEOA, Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion faulted the district court and the Ninth Circuit for focusing on the «narrow question» of funding, and ignoring whether managerial and instructional reforms had brought the state into compliance.

«It is crucial for a democratic society to provide all of its schoolchildren with fair access to an unsegregated education,» Ellen A. Peters, then chief justice of the state's High Court, wrote in the majority opinion in July 1996.

Their concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion argued: (1) the court should not have reached the issue because: «n reaching the merits of the Section 10 challenge, the court ignores the fact that the Duncan complaint (which raised the Section 10 challenge) was dismissed by the district court for failure to state a claim under NRCP 12 (b)(5);» and (2) the issue is one of first impression, which the justices, in dissent, said is «not as well - defined and easily resolved as my colleagues suggest,... the proper action here, had a majority of this court not determined that SB 302's funding is unconstitutional, would be to remand this matter to the district court for further proceedings and factual development as to this claim.»

However, DeMatio summed up the majority opinion here when he stated, «Although I love the way the Sportage looks and I like a lot about its interior, I'd have to say that its newer competitors have raised the bar.»

A new public opinion survey conducted by Lake Research Partners has concluded that a majority of Missouri voters do not want their state legislature to repeal or weaken Proposition B, the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, which was approved in November.

Majority of the opinions state that they believe the first Outlast to be better than the second, and I would like to tell you why this is wrong.

I should state at the outset that, despite the reassessments of the artist's oeuvre that have been surfacing over the past couple of years, such as Raphael Rubinstein's spirited defense in the March 2011 issue of Art in America, I remain unconvinced that prevailing critical opinion has misjudged the majority of Schnabel's work.

His talk touched on the findings of his recent work, and pondered the divide between public opinion regarding global warming — he pointed out that strong majorities in every single state believe that it's real — and the opinion held by our political leaders.

In the Supreme Court hearing, the majority opinion written by Justice Roberts stated that these federal courts abused their discretionary power and felt Navy operations were more important than marine mammal health.

Clearly, a category 3 paper is NOT in any way stating an opinion that the majority of observed warming is anthropogenic.

A relevant case here is Brewer v. Williams, in which the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, by Justice Stewart, stated that

According to the Court it «did no more than acknowledge the fact that, as stated by the Council in the course of the proceedings relating to that Opinion, there was no possibility of the required majority being obtained within the Council for the Union to be able to exercise alone the external competence that it shares with the Member States in this area.»

The majority opinion of Justice Stewart was specifically approved by a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada in Hunter v Southam Inc., [1984] 2 SCR 145 where Justice Brian Dickson held, at p. 159, that s. 8 of the Charter containing the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure is not restricted to the protection of property or associated with the law of trespass, at p. 159: «[I] n Katz... Stewart J. delivering the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court declared at p. 351 that «the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places».

Alabama issued an opinion recently disagreeing with the majority of states and holding that the service is not permissible.

(Stevens had no majority opinion from that sitting; Rehnquist had two, and the other one was the majority opinion in the Miranda blockbuster Dickerson v. United States; and to my eyes at least, Stevens» dissent, with its detailed statement of facts, reads like a converted majority opinion.)

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.

In deciding Kennedy v. Louisiana, holding that the Constitution bars the death penalty for child rape, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's 5 - 4 majority opinion relied heavily on a survey of state and federal law.

Orin Kerr spent Wednesday lunch working his way through the majority opinions on United States v. Booker, and United States v. Fanfan.

Find out why Volokh Conspiracy's Orin Kerr awards Justice Stevens «the most honest explanation of the origins of the Blakely revolution» for his part in the majority opinion in United States v. Booker.

However, in a number of high profile and sensitive cases in recent years Member States have been unable to find the necessary majorities to either vote in favour or against certain draft acts, a so - called «no opinion» scenario.

Likewise, Justice Scalia talks about «the crime the state actually seeks to punish» in his Blakely majority opinion.

In BP Refinery (Westenport) Pty Limited v Shire of Hastings [1977] 52 ALJR 20, Lord Simon, giving the opinion of the majority of the Privy Council, summarised the state of the law as he then understood it: «For a term to be implied, the following conditions (which may overlap) must be satisfied: (1) it must be reasonable and equitable; (2) it must be necessary to give business efficacy to the contract, so that no term will be implied if the contract is effective without it; (3) it must be so obvious that «it goes without saying»; (4) it must be capable of clear expression; (5) it must not contradict any express term of the contract.»

«When a state empowers a group of active market participants to decide who can participate in its market, and on what terms, the need for supervision is manifest,» wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in his majority opinion.

As Denniston notes, both the majority and concurring opinions suggested that «there remain other potential state constitutional challenges to the measure.»

Justice Thurgood Marshall had written the opinion for a 6 - 3 majority and stressed that corporations enjoy a «unique, state - conferred» legal structure that helps them «accumulate large amounts of wealth.»

In the majority opinion, Circuit Judge Moore stated that the court granted rehearing to reaffirm the limits of appellate review, including review of claim construction issues in light of Teva Pharms., Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015).

Judge Susan L. Carney, writing the majority opinion in which Judge Victor A. Bolden concurred, summarized the conclusion of the court that interpreting warrant to require a service provider to produce data from beyond the borders of the United States would require the court to disregard the presumption against extraterritoriality, at p. 6:

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.

While the majority opinion and concurrence seems grounded in — and specific to — sex offender restrictions, the evolving communications technology that operates in cyberspace today suggests that the ruling will have an impact on attempts to restrict web access for all criminal defendants in state or federal courts...

Most recently, in R v Oakes, 2016 ABCA 90, the case that is my topic here, the majority ruling of Justices Myra Bielby and Frederica Schutz, at para. 11, adopted the opinion in R v Truscott (2007), 225 CCC (3d) 321 (Ont CA) where a unanimous five member panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal stated, at para. 110, that the power to overturn a conviction founded in a miscarriage of justice, ``... can reach virtually any kind of error that renders the trial unfair in a procedural or substantive way.»

The vast majority of the time I do not editorialize or state opinions of what I think the law should be.

Mr. Liskin assisted in drafting an Amicus Brief to the United States Supreme Court that was cited by the majority opinion in a First Amendment case.

That fairly technical legal issue was previously considered by the Court in Freeman v. United States, which had no majority opinion.

The majority based its opinion on the fact that the United States Supreme Court ruling had removed the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) as a basis for preventing the adoption and that the previous South Carolina Supreme Court opinion had «held that, under state law, Birth Father's consent to the adoption was not required under section 63-9-310 (A)(5) of the South Carolina Code.»

The majority opinion clearly states that Wyeth must comply with both state and federal law in labeling its drugs and that the language on preemption introduced by the FDA in 2006 «does not merit deference.»»

On 26th June 2015 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favour of marriage equality, according to a majority opinion.