Sentences with phrase «means access to courts»

For clients, access to justice means access to courts.

Not exact matches

That meant that even company employees could not see messages, phone calls, photos or videos sent across the WhatsApp network, and the company had no way of complying with any court order demanding access to those communications.

In both northern California's recent Gasquette - Orleans Road Supreme Court ruling of 1988 and South Dakota's 1983 court ruling on Bear Butte, indigenous peoples lost protection of and access to sacred sites which in their view have for centuries held life - giving power and meaCourt ruling of 1988 and South Dakota's 1983 court ruling on Bear Butte, indigenous peoples lost protection of and access to sacred sites which in their view have for centuries held life - giving power and meacourt ruling on Bear Butte, indigenous peoples lost protection of and access to sacred sites which in their view have for centuries held life - giving power and meaning.

I have never known what it meant except that it seems to involve having no access to a tennis court.

But despite a series of unanimous Supreme Court decisions meant to reverse this trend, in the ensuing years large numbers of black students failed to gain access to the best programs the newly integrated schools offered.

For the occasional visitor, that means unparalleled access to first - rate resort amenities, boat charters, tennis courts, fairways, clubhouses, fitness centers, day spas and a wide selection of ocean view condos, bungalows and vacation rentals.

Alan Shanoff has argued that real access to justice means reducing the roles that lawyers play in the courts.

The recent announcement by Carswell that its multi-volume print work «Words and Phrases Judicially Defined in Canadian Courts and Tribunals» is available online means that both Westlawecarswell and LexisNexis Quicklaw now offer access to edited extracts of of the meaning of words and phrases as discussed in judicial decisions.

The Washington LLLT program came about after our Supreme Court commissioned a Civil Legal Needs Study in 2003, which concluded that there was limited access to justice for those with little or no financial means.

The first, Government Access to Encrypted Communications, «describes the law of 12 nations and the European Union on whether the government, pursuant to a court order or other government process, can require companies to decrypt encrypted communications or provide the government with the means to do so».

That said, access to justice as access to courts afforded to people with little financial means shouldn't be contingent only on whether we have a mosaic - like legal community.

That means time and cost savings for them too — and a leveling of access for people who have the hardest time getting to court.

In the context of this case, the court recognised that the «potential impact on the livelihoods of solicitors and access to justice» meant that a «high degree of fairness was required».

Indiana trial courts, Indiana Foreclosure Prevention Network counselor, and housing lender lawyers will have access to the secure portal, offering a means for all sides to exchange financial information necessary for successful settlement processes.

On appeal, we argued, and the Superior Court agreed, that the alleged evidence of the utility company's control by contract and conduct (e.g., the presence of a contract field representative on site, internal safety guidelines, controlling access to the pole when lines were energized, the provision of certain ladders for access to the pole) was insufficient as a matter of law to constitute control over the means and methods of the subcontractor's work, and thus, the utility was not liable as a landowner out of possession.

The Supreme Court ruling further jeopardizes access to the courts, as subjecting individuals to mandatory detention means that an immigration judge does not have the authority to consider an individual's bond case.

Registering a trademark, however, grants you several exclusive rights, including nationwide trademark rights, access to federal courts for litigation, constructive use and notice (meaning others can not feign ignorance of your trademark), and it may become uncontestable after five years of unopposed registration.

Jamie Beagent of Leigh Day & Co, acting for PLP, says: «To undermine a key means by which the public can access the constitutional court of this country without introducing the balancing reforms recommended by Lord Justice Jackson is unjustifiable.»

Not only would it save money, it would mean fast access to digital recordings via CM / ECF for lawyers involved in the case (and the public, through PACER, although I suppose courts would have to be extra-vigilant when it comes to confidential information).

It also explores Internet technology's potential for increasing access to legal information, predicted by Richard Susskind in 1996, as a means for selfhelp with settlement and support for court access.

[2] The Court then commissioned the Civil Legal Needs Study in 2003, which concluded that there was limited access to justice for those with little or no financial means.

PACER means «Public Access to Court Electronic Records», giving access to over 500 million U.S. federal court documents, including a listing of parties involved in the litigation,... Access to Court Electronic Records», giving access to over 500 million U.S. federal court documents, including a listing of parties involved in the litigation,... [Court Electronic Records», giving access to over 500 million U.S. federal court documents, including a listing of parties involved in the litigation,... access to over 500 million U.S. federal court documents, including a listing of parties involved in the litigation,... [court documents, including a listing of parties involved in the litigation,... [more]

Furthermore, the German court inquired whether there are any other conditions that must be fulfilled in order to consider a service to be «provided» within the meaning of Article 12 (1) E-Commerce Directive, other than that access to a network has been made available.

Protecting the network by a password, which would require users to reveal their identity when accessing the network (by which technical means the Court did however not say — and as will be explained below, this might prove to be a weak point in the Court's ruling), could deter and dissuade users from committing infringing acts through this network.

penalizes the defendant for engaging in public participation «plaintiff» means a person who initiates or maintains a proceeding against a defendant; «proceeding» means any action, suit, matter, cause, counterclaim, appeal, or originating application that is brought in the Supreme Court or the Provincial Court, but does not include a prosecution for an offence or a crime; «public interest» means the whole of the subject matter invites public attention, or a matter in which the public has some substantial concern because it affects the welfare of citizens, or one to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached; «public participation» means communication or conduct aimed at influencing public opinion, or promoting further lawful action by the public or any government body, in relation to an issue of public interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper purpose.

In this assessment a court has to consider the role of the user and whether his intervention was made knowingly and whether it was necessary to give access to the content; a court has to further ask whether the act of communication to a «public» is made to an indeterminate number of individuals where that number has a certain magnitude, and whether this communication uses technical means different from those of the original act of communication; and finally, whether the act of communication to the public serves to generate profits for the user.

What I mean by extremely poor planning by the trust's settlor (s), is where the settlor (s) believe that a spendthrift provision in the trust document alone will save the vast majority of settlor's legacy from a court - appointed bankruptcy trustee, if the spendthrift decides to file for bankruptcy; after all, most spendthrift trusts say the magic words that purportedly limit a bankrupt trustee's access to the corpus of the trust or at least the vast majority of the corpus of the trust.

In this case, the Court permitted an injunction aimed at a certain outcome (blocking access to a particular website), leaving it to the service provider to find appropriate means to achieve that aim.

This means that access to the Supreme Court will further consolidate in the hands of large firms, even though but for the efforts of the small, the cases would never have advanced up to the Supremes.

The Canadian Bar Association's Envisioning Equal Justice consultation paper, Underexplored Alternatives for the Middle Class, recognizes the need to «re-engineer» dispute resolution processes and explores a number of court process reforms as potential means to provide better access to judicial dispute resolution.

For these spouses, they may not also apply to the court for the corollary relief — meaning they may not also ask the court for spousal support, child support, custody and access, or property division.

Post Unison, the government, the courts & the profession are all looking at the issue of access to justice & what it means to ensure it's a reality, says David Greene

The Ontario Legislature seems likely to pass shortly the Access to Justice Act, Bill 14, which in Schedule E amends the Provincial Offences Act to allow testimony in court by electronic means.

The court requires that clients be able to appear in person, which limits access to those who live in the Lower Mainland or who have the means to travel.

Litigation funding has been endorsed by the Jersey Courts as a means of providing access to justice and various case - law has cleared the way for the greater use of litigation funding in this jurisdiction.

The low to moderate income communities who lack the means to access the courts to resolve their legal troubles.

Those recommendations include «The Court should form a standing committee to maintain accountability for closing the justice gap and to monitor the effectiveness of reform initiatives,» «The Court should encourage the State Bar of Texas, the Texas Access to Justice Commission, and local bar associations to create pipelines of services for modest - means clients,» and «A primary objective of future rulemaking projects should be to make the civil justice system more accessible to modest - means clients.»

These assessments, called s. 15 reports, are meant to provide information to the court about the best custody and access arrangement for the parties and their children.

The Courts view litigation funding as a means to level the playing field and provide access to justice, and they have set out the parameters within which the Courts would expect third party funding to function.

If persons with disabilities do not have the means to access the courts, the rights to equality guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in human rights legislation are hallow and meaningless.

As to the second question, the Court held that the PTWD must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes, for the purpose of access to the pension scheme, national law from establishing a distinction between full - time judges and part - time judges remunerated on a daily fee - paid basis, unless such a difference in treatment is justified by objective reasons, which is a matter for the referring court to deterCourt held that the PTWD must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes, for the purpose of access to the pension scheme, national law from establishing a distinction between full - time judges and part - time judges remunerated on a daily fee - paid basis, unless such a difference in treatment is justified by objective reasons, which is a matter for the referring court to detercourt to determine.

The American Association for Justice (AAJ) is committed to advocating for the civil justice system, whether that means taking on powerful corporate interests, opposing unconstitutional attacks on the civil justice system or fighting harmful legislation that limits Americans» access to the courts.

He has also been instructed in significant cases on human rights issues, such as Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2014] UKSC 19 (Supreme Court case on Article 5 ECHR) and A v Essex CC [2010] UKSC 33 (Supreme Court case on the meaning of Article 2 Protocol 1 right of access to effective education under the ECHR).

ILS Director of Research Andrew Davies, a co-investigator on the study, said having no access to an attorney before court can mean jail time without discussion of bail.»

He was involved in the law centre movement and especially concerned with issues of access to advice and to the courts, and extra judicial means of dispute resolution by means of negotiation and mediation.

NJP will also accept cases involving other issues, such as transportation, discrimination in public accommodations, general barriers to accessing courts and other means of resolving disputes or matters that otherwise address systemic problems experienced by low income individuals or communities.

Do we mean «Access to a Lawyer in Court,» or do we mean «Access to a State - Sanctioned DR System»?

He said the court's interpretation extended to any place, including the farmyard in Vnuck, which means «all those UK cases that differentiate between private property and land to which the public have access are out of date».

This practice is meant to balance the privacy of individuals with the public interest in having broad access to court and tribunal decisions.

Mostly, the right of access to courts (which the parties tended to refer to as access to justice, although — as the provinces pointed out — access to justice involves many different things) was said to flow from the constitutional principle of the Rule of Law, which the Supreme Court has long recognized, albeit giving it a very narrow meaning.