Sentences with phrase «majority rule in the case»

While the First Amendment would seem to provide the answer to these objections by limiting majority rule in the case of fundamental freedoms, minority faiths in America know all too well that even constitutional guarantees are not iron - clad.

Not exact matches

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision at the beginning of 2015 to accept the case in which a court majority ruled in June that state gay marriage bans are unconstitutional was a likely trigger, Warbelow said.

A ruling against Aereo would conflict with its earlier decision in the Cablevision case, the majority said.

In his majority opinion on the Illinois case, Judge Richard Posner said the Heller ruling guaranteed people the right to carry weapons «in case of confrontation,» which is not limited to the home, according to SlatIn his majority opinion on the Illinois case, Judge Richard Posner said the Heller ruling guaranteed people the right to carry weapons «in case of confrontation,» which is not limited to the home, according to Slatin case of confrontation,» which is not limited to the home, according to Slate.

It's an important change, because many boards now following the TSX's voting rules do take advantage of this loophole: in 2015, 21 directors got majority withholds, and in 16 of the cases, boards used the exemption rule to keep the director.

Shareholder proposals under the current SEC rules are not burdensome, and in the vast majority of cases, are not even binding.

Our nation is NOT founded on a principle of «majority» rules — as in many cases the majority of people have wrong thinking.

The US Supreme Court has ruled on the first of three pending cases challenging the Honest Services statute under which former Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno was convicted back in December.

The city of Baltimore took down monuments to Lee, Jackson and pre-Civil War Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, who wrote the majority decision in the Dred Scott Case, ruling that the descendants of slaves were not US citizens.

The 4 - 1 majority ruling in favour of an application brought before the Supreme Court by lawyers for Dr. Zanetor Agyeman — Rawlings was given on Thursday May 19 2016 in which the panel led by Justice William Atuguba stayed proceedings in the high court case against the candidature of Dr. Zanetor Agyeman - Rawlings pending the interpretation of article 94 (1)(a) of the 1992 constitution on June 2 2016.

The ruling came in the case of 1,000 former employees of Allied Steel and Wire (ASW), who lost the majority of their pensions when their firm went bust in 2002.

New York State's campaign finance rules allow lawmakers wide latitude to use campaign funds for covering legal fees, restaurant tabs, season tickets to professional sporting events, or in the infamous case of former Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, a $ 1,300 pool clean - up.

And buoyed by an active party who can rein in both the Executive and Senate on an issue (if the two are produced by the same party) as is the case at present (APC, being the ruling party, which produced both the President and a whooping majority of the Senators.

«In this case, it will even be the decision of the majority and a losing battle already,» the Speaker ruled.

A portion of the article reads: «On issues of pure politics, and going by which party appointed them; the way they have historically voted on political issues; and their posture and voting pattern during the Election Petition Case of 2012; and in the case of a non-unanimous decision, the majority of the current panel of the Supreme Court will likely rule in favour of the stance preferred by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in this case and the minority for the stance of the National Democratic Congress (NDC).&raCase of 2012; and in the case of a non-unanimous decision, the majority of the current panel of the Supreme Court will likely rule in favour of the stance preferred by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in this case and the minority for the stance of the National Democratic Congress (NDC).&racase of a non-unanimous decision, the majority of the current panel of the Supreme Court will likely rule in favour of the stance preferred by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in this case and the minority for the stance of the National Democratic Congress (NDC).&racase and the minority for the stance of the National Democratic Congress (NDC).»

That law states that in such instances, a majority of the party's statewide candidates from the previous election (in this case there are four) must back one of the rule sets.

On issues of pure politics, and going by which party appointed them; the way they have historically voted on political issues; and their posture and voting pattern during the Election Petition Case of 2012; and in the case of a non-unanimous decision, the majority of the current panel of the Supreme Court will likely rule in favour of the stance preferred by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in this case and the minority for the stance of the National Democratic Congress (NCase of 2012; and in the case of a non-unanimous decision, the majority of the current panel of the Supreme Court will likely rule in favour of the stance preferred by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in this case and the minority for the stance of the National Democratic Congress (Ncase of a non-unanimous decision, the majority of the current panel of the Supreme Court will likely rule in favour of the stance preferred by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in this case and the minority for the stance of the National Democratic Congress (Ncase and the minority for the stance of the National Democratic Congress (NDC).

In the world of schooling, the majority of highly successful turnaround cases seem to be those where an individual educator had not only the right idea about instruction, but also the tenacity to bend or break those rules that would have prevented meaningful changes at the school level.

Under the existing rules, up to 25 per cent of the fund could be taken as a tax free lump sum and the remainder would, in the majority of cases, be required to be used to purchase an annuity.

Friedrich's case made it to the Supreme Court, where a majority of justices seemed ready to rule in her favor and against the constitutionality of agency fees.

I probably cover Lakewood's morally and fiscally bankrupt schools too often, but this Ocean County school district that enrolls almost entirely Latino and Black low - income students pushes all my education reform buttons: tyranny of the majority (in this case the ultra-Orthodox residents who control the municipal government and the school board); lack of accountability; lack of school choice for poor kids of color but anything goes (at public expense) for children of the ruling class; discrimination against minority special education students.

In any case, under UN rules, a decision by five major economies — even if they did account for a majority of global emissions — simply did not count.

14) March 2, 2012 The Virginia Supreme Court rules in the University of Virginia's favor in the Mann case, with the majority finding that the university is not a «person» as defined in the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (FATA), and therefore the Attorney General has no authority under the Act to make civil investigative demands (CIDs) of the university.

But — again focusing on the statutory rape charge at the heart of the case, and not on the charges that required a showing of lack of consent — it's hard to see perversion of justice in sticking with an old rule that would set the age of consent one day earlier than the majority thinks reasonable.

«The executive is bound to comply with the rule of law that prevails in this jurisdiction,» Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the 5 - to - 3 majority, said at the end of a 73 - page opinion that in sober tones shredded each of the administration's arguments, including the assertion that Congress had stripped the court of jurisdiction to decide the case.

There is a majority opinion that says Judge Posner had erred to the extent that he applied a per se rule that injunctions are unavailable for SEPs, yet affirms his decision to deny SEP - based injunctive relief in this case because, among other things, «Motorola's FRAND commitments, which have yielded many license agreements encompassing the» 898 patent, strongly suggest that money damages are adequate to fully compensate Motorola for any infringement».

There are also distinctions between states, but the broad outlines are often generally similar in all states and where they differ it is frequently the case that there are only two to four rules of all in place in all of the states combined with one majority or plurality rule and one to three minority rules.

Texas, along with a majority of states, recognizes the Modified Comparative Fault Rule in personal injury and premises liability cases.

The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that «treaties» (ratified by 2/3 of the Senate as specified in Article II) have the same legal effect in US law as regular legislation passed by Congress (by a simple majority of both houses), which means that Congress can modify or repeal (insofar as US law is concerned) any «treaty» that is ratified by the Senate, by passing a later law that contradicts it, just like it can with regular legislation.

(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.

The rules requiring service of hard copies or faxes of factums and records are hopelessly out of date, and unnecessary in the vast majority of cases.

Given the majority's emphasis on the «integrity and business efficacy of the tendering process» in its decision, it's interesting to speculate how these 5 judges would rule on the public policy issue should a similar case come back before the Court.

Although there were «many reasons why the court may have ruled as they did» in the case, Grant told Legal Feeds, he was disappointed that the majority of seven judges on the court had found that the Ktunaxa's claim did not did not fall within the scope of s. 2 (a) of the Charter.

The suggestion that the desire to avoid civil law majorities expressed the ad hoc rules should be carried over into an interpretation that it is only current membership at the time of appointment (or in the case of lawyers, even uninterrupted ten years membership) that ensures that the representatives will be seen as legitimate is laughable.

Massey appealed, and the case reached the West Virginia Supreme Court, where Justice Brent Benjamin cast the deciding vote in a 3 - 2 majority ruling to set aside the verdict.

Considering that in the majority of cases involving serious corporate misconduct the authorities may impose administrative penalties and measures affecting the company's ability to continue and develop its activities, as a rule participation in a leniency programme is considered the better option for a company and implicated individuals.

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.»

In the Jordan ruling, a five - judge majority of the Supreme Court said if a case in provincial court takes longer than 18 months between the person's arrest and the anticipated end of their trial, then it should be stayed unless the Crown can prove there are exceptional circumstanceIn the Jordan ruling, a five - judge majority of the Supreme Court said if a case in provincial court takes longer than 18 months between the person's arrest and the anticipated end of their trial, then it should be stayed unless the Crown can prove there are exceptional circumstancein provincial court takes longer than 18 months between the person's arrest and the anticipated end of their trial, then it should be stayed unless the Crown can prove there are exceptional circumstances.

In Douglas, a 5 - 4 majority vacated the Ninth Circuit's affirmative answer to that question based upon an intervening change in the administrative posture in the case — without endorsing or criticizing the Court of Appeals» rulinIn Douglas, a 5 - 4 majority vacated the Ninth Circuit's affirmative answer to that question based upon an intervening change in the administrative posture in the case — without endorsing or criticizing the Court of Appeals» rulinin the administrative posture in the case — without endorsing or criticizing the Court of Appeals» rulinin the case — without endorsing or criticizing the Court of Appeals» ruling.

The tougher, more robust approach to rule compliance and relief from sanctions is intended to ensure that justice can be done in the majority of cases.

There is a myriad of cases in the US... but also the decision of the British House of Lords in Spring v. Guardian Assurance, in which a majority of the court ruled that employers can be held liable for damages caused to employees by negligently prepared references.

Many states, although I'm not sure if it is a minority or majority rule, expressly limit adverse possession, at least, to cases in which the person currently in possession of the property has acted in good faith at all times, and at least some require that showing as to everyone in the chain of title relied upon to establish adverse possession.

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...

The majority of Illinois motorists drive within the rules of the law which includes carrying automobile insurance in case of an accident.

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that «Supreme Court rules against Bush in death - row case; A 6 - to - 3 majority said the president can't order a state court to abide by an international court ruling.»

In the complex world of housing court and eviction laws there are 12 basic rules that govern the vast majority of all landlord initiated eviction cases.

In the case of a dispute, a simple majority rules system will decide how to handle the situation.

To elaborate, the majority opinion took great pains [see FR, pp. 75 - 76] to highlight the similarities between the Hellenic and the Italian legal order, while endorsing unconditionally the position adopted by the Constitutional Court of Italy in its celebrated Sentenza 238/2014 (nullifying as unconstitutional a municipal law binding domestic courts to follow the ICJ's ruling in the Jurisdictional Immunities Case).

Now, you've heard the saying «too many cooks in the kitchen spoil the soup», so obviously there had to be some compromise and it seems that in most cases the majority ended up ruling on spec decisions.

In other cases, a majority of miners might be convinced to switch to the new consensus rules after a fork has occurred.