Sentences with phrase «means taking your case to court»

Not exact matches

The Court of Appeals for this Circuit in the Gaidry case took note of these two cases, but held them not reconcilable with the later ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Baglin v. Cusenier, 221 U. S. 680 [1 T. M. Rep. 147], wherein it was held that the fact that the primary meaning of the word «Chartreuse» was geographical did not prevent the acquisition of the exclusive right to its use as the designation of a liqueur made by the monks of the Monastery of La Grande Chartreuse.

We are confident that judges will take advantage of the AAAS offer to provide a slate of candidates to serve as court - appointed experts in cases in which the court has determined that the traditional means of clarifying issues under the adversarial system are unlikely to yield the information that is necessary for a reasoned and principled resolution of the disputed issues.

Taking pro bono matters means you will need to interact potentially with opposing counsel, judges, court staff, other lawyers taking pro bono cases, volunteer lawyer program staff, other lawyers at training CLEs,Taking pro bono matters means you will need to interact potentially with opposing counsel, judges, court staff, other lawyers taking pro bono cases, volunteer lawyer program staff, other lawyers at training CLEs,taking pro bono cases, volunteer lawyer program staff, other lawyers at training CLEs, etc..

This Court of Appeal decision serves as a useful reminder that while in some cases the overriding objective and the obligation for a case to be dealt with proportionately will necessitate a speedy and efficient conclusion, in other cases, such as where a party's liberty is at stake, it is imperative that time is taken by the court to ensure that the procedural requirements are complied with, even if that means two separate hearCourt of Appeal decision serves as a useful reminder that while in some cases the overriding objective and the obligation for a case to be dealt with proportionately will necessitate a speedy and efficient conclusion, in other cases, such as where a party's liberty is at stake, it is imperative that time is taken by the court to ensure that the procedural requirements are complied with, even if that means two separate hearcourt to ensure that the procedural requirements are complied with, even if that means two separate hearings.

«I think the [Supreme] court reaffirmed the idea that... the oppression remedy is a broad remedy, [meant to be] applied flexibly by a trial judge, taking into account the particular circumstances of any case,» Douglas Mitchell of Irving Mitchell Kalichman LLP in Montreal and lead counsel for the respondent, told Legal Feeds.

Neither will automation mean an end to litigation, Sir Geoffrey Vos, chancellor of the High Court, said: predictions will never be 100 % correct — and in any case decisions about whether to pursue a case are not always taken by entirely rational people.

In determining its meaning, the court may take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, including any reasonable implications the words may bear, the context in which the words are used, the audience to whom they were published and the manner in which they were presented.

I also take some issue with the court's contention that «The term «probation» has a recognized meaning in employment law»... and I think that this case is a great example of why that's a challenging thing to say - because the «recognized meaning», as applied by the Divisional Court, turns out to be plainly inconsistent with thecourt's contention that «The term «probation» has a recognized meaning in employment law»... and I think that this case is a great example of why that's a challenging thing to say - because the «recognized meaning», as applied by the Divisional Court, turns out to be plainly inconsistent with theCourt, turns out to be plainly inconsistent with the ESA.

You can have confidence that our lawyer will pursue the highest amount of compensation available for your accident, even if it means that we have to take your case to court in order to do so.

The Court of Appeal in Trudel, like most of the more recent cases, took the view once the state has made out a prima facie case for immunity (in this case, establishing that the defendant is a «foreign state» within the meaning of the Act), the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish that the criteria for an exception are met.

Local authorities will need to complete their assessments prior to court, whereas at the moment they go to court at an earlier stage, she says, which may mean cases take longer to reach court, even if they make faster progress once there.

That is what this court should be taken to have meant when, in its brief endorsement in Bohemier, it said that the lower court judge was right to «tak [e] into account economic factors when considering the case for each of the parties»

Hence the need for clients to require lawyers who have experience and determination enough to take a case before a court, even the highest one in the country («Cour de Cassation»), if no other means exist.

While the secretary of state accepted that this was the case, he argued that the system taken as a whole — including the ability to bring judicial review proceedings against a refusal to remove from the provisional list — meant that the system complied with Art 6 (1), as per the principle laid down by the European Court of Human Rights in Bryan v United Kingdom (Application 19178 / 91)(1995) 21 EHRR 342.

That provision must be understood as meaning that a court having jurisdiction pursuant to that regulation may reasonably continue proceedings, in the case where it has not been established that the defendant has been enabled to receive the document instituting the proceedings, only if all necessary steps have been taken to ensure that the defendant can defend his interests.

In his courtroom, he said, he intended the term to mean, «This court will work hard being informal to hear anything and everything pertaining to the case and stay as long as it takes to get to the truth.»

While 80 - 90 % of our cases settle out of court (before trial) our strong trial experience means we're not afraid of going to trial if that's what it takes.

Litigation is the process of a lawsuit or other means of taking a case through court to resolve a legal question or matter.

The Tribunal takes up complaints referred to it by the Commission and holds all the powers of a superior court under the Constitution Act, 1867, which means it has similar power and authority to hear cases and render judgments.

Vardags experience of challenging the legal status quo and taking cases to the highest courts means that we are well - placed to fight your appeal.

None of this means that the court is to take over the function of the decision - maker, least of all in a case like this one.....

The original trial judge said that that previous case, in which the Crown took a case against Wallace Duncan Smith, meant «that the Crown Court had jurisdiction to try the appellants for their conduct because a substantial measure of the activities constituting the crime took place in England,» according to the Court of Appeal.

That means police and prosecutors must ensure it takes no more than 18 months from the laying of a charge to complete a trial in provincial court, and 30 months for serious, often more complex cases in superior trial courts.

Clients who focus on how a cop was «mean» to them need to understand that aggressively taking on a police officer in court is usually not going to win your case.

In the Henry case in British Columbia, the government was able to pass the third step of the Oakes test largely because, under the current rules, vouching is permitted: «Looking at the scheme as a whole, taking into account the broad range of options available for proof of identity and residence,» wrote Madam Justice Smith of the B.C. Supreme Court, «I am satisfied that there are no alternative, less drastic means of achieving both of Canada's legislative objectives in a real and substantial manner.»

«The impact on the approach taken previously by the Family Division in such cases shouldn't be disregarded however, the Supreme Court was clear that Salomon would apply in the majority of cases and that no special meaning should be given to s 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

Finally, the judgment mentions two «problem cases» that had been in issue in the arguments: (i) the «teacher» problem (above)-- here it was pointed out that the court's decision resolved this issue because it meant that the employers could continue to require holidays to be taken out of term time, even though that is not «working time»;

At first, you might be tempted to think that litigation only means that a case is taken to court and solve.

Our specialist personal injury solicitors aim to secure the best outcome for you and this may mean that we need to take your case to court.