Sentences with phrase «moving parties in this case»

Not exact matches

The plaintiffs emphasized in their Monday brief «the importance that the cases move expeditiously to resolution,» adding that the parties will soon submit a «joint proposed schedule for prompt summary - judgment briefing and oral argument following consolidation.»

Truth is if Wilshere stayed behind he will get ample gametime in any case if he stays fit but would not necessarilly mean he'll grow as a player or bring anything special to the team, a loan move allowsf for fresh perspective from all parties and provides a platform growth.

There might be an empirical question of whether such a move had broad support within a party; but in a case where it did so, the freedom of association idea would surely support their choosing to invite outsiders to participate in various ways.

The latest move came in the case of Edward Walsh, the chairman of Suffolk's Conservative Party and longtime political ally and friend of Spota, a Democrat.

After Haldar's attorney Thomas Capezza filed a notice of «discontinuance» in state Supreme Court on Sept. 21, effectively moving to dismiss the suit, attorneys for SUNY Poly filed a letter with the court the next day saying they objected since not all of the parties in the case had signed off on it.

He added the issue still remains a «line in the sand» for him this legislative session, saying that it also made the case of taking up his other provisions in the overhaul package, such as ending soft money party committees, a move that Assembly Democrats have not included in their legislation.

Padavan has an ally in Mayor Bloomberg, who has long been a supporter of the veteran GOP lawmaker and appears inclined to continue to do so, even as he moves away from a policy of strictly contributing to the Senate Republicans in favor of backing individuals lawmakers on a case - by - case basis, regardless of their party affiliation.

C) Cause mayhem and disorder with your new boys; of course the idea is to make cash... and lots of it.c) You are now loaded, move through your ward, local and state government to get a stake and make sure one of those hiding in «villa» of course is on your back in case of civil implications.d) Source for ugly information from anybody who might contest against, whether he is from same party or not.Now your boys on the move.....

In stark contrast, the London party is moving right as MPs like Tessa Jowell — hoping to be Labour's candidate for London Mayor — refuse to back the Mansion Tax, in case it sends the wrong message to aspirational voterIn stark contrast, the London party is moving right as MPs like Tessa Jowell — hoping to be Labour's candidate for London Mayor — refuse to back the Mansion Tax, in case it sends the wrong message to aspirational voterin case it sends the wrong message to aspirational voters.

Casual: Wii Sports WarioWare: Smooth Moves Wii Play Mario Party 8 Big Brain Academy: Wii Degree Link's Crossbow Training Endless Ocean Wii Fit Wario Land: The Shake Dimension Wii Music Animal Crossing: City Folk Common sense of people power TV (Japan only) Wii Sports Resort Wii Fit Plus Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games (Published by Nintendo in Japan only) NHK Kōhaku Quiz Gassen (Japan only) Endless Ocean 2: Adventures of the Deep PokéPark Wii: Pikachu's Adventure Wii Party Kirby's Epic Yarn FlingSmash Mario Sports Mix Wii Play Motion Mystery Case Files: The Malgrave Incident Non-Casual: Excite Truck The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Super Paper Mario Pokémon Battle Revolution Mario Strikers Charged Metroid Prime 3: Corruption Donkey Kong Barrel Blast Battalion Wars 2 Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn Super Mario Galaxy Eyeshield 21: The Field's Greatest Warriors (Japan only) Disaster: Day of Crisis (Japan, Europe and Australia only) Mario Super Sluggers (Japan and North America only)» Fatal Frame IV (Japan only) Captain Rainbow (Japan only) Super Smash Bros..

The main parties involved in bringing the case will get $ 3,500 each, but the remainder is up for grabs — but you'll have to move fast to get your share, and there are a couple of caveats.

Darren Samuelsohn of ClimateWire has nicely summarized the challenges facing a president and party seeking to move more than one substantial initiative, in this case health and climate bills, through Congress:

And as Kevin LaCroix (now an executive with OakBridge Insurance Services) observed after reading the transcript's account of the tone and temper of the parties» pleadings in the case, his «own decision years ago to walk away from the active practice of law seemed more and more like a really smart move.»

Professor White suggests that it does matter how opinions are written because they have important consequences for the parties in a particular case and for the future.29 He further argues that a crucial part of legal activity is the criticism of opinions on rational, political, and moral grounds because that is how relevant arguments are made in support of changing or retaining current rules of law.30 For him, the bigger question «is whether law will move in the direction of trivializing human experience, and itself, or in the direction of dignifying itself and that experience.»

The move from the LVT to the Property Chamber meant that a new set of procedural rules applied to those cases and, until recently, the position in relation to the recoverability of costs from unsuccessful parties was unclear.

In other words, assuming all disputed facts fall in favor of the non-moving party, the moving party still would win the casIn other words, assuming all disputed facts fall in favor of the non-moving party, the moving party still would win the casin favor of the non-moving party, the moving party still would win the case.

The court observed that the case involved «a breakdown of trust and friendship» and observed that «mediation is the obvious way in which to explore these matters and allow the parties to move on before they cripple themselves with more debt.»

Basically, facts that are not in dispute (either because the parties agree upon them or because application of the law to the facts dictates a particular result) are presented to the court, and then the court must decide if the case can move forward.

Specifically, setting the bar at «balance of probabilities plus» might encourage employers to settle otherwise unmeritorious claims where an interim order has been made (following a necessarily incomplete and superficial examination of the evidence and the parties» respective positions); and give successful employees unrealistic expectations as they move towards the full hearing, especially bearing in mind the absence of a statutory compensation cap in public interest disclosure cases.

Like any party moving ex parte the AGO must not only disclose the facts and law supporting his motion, but also identify and explain any weaknesses in the case — i.e. in effect put before the court arguments that the responding party might advance if he had been given notice of the motion.

I used him an an expert in a family law case to prove that California custody orders are not enforceable in Japan and the Court relied on his testimony to deny the opposing party's move away request.

In the recent case (Froese v. Wilson) the 17 year old Plaintiff who «became severely intoxicated at a house party» left riding in the cargo box of a pickup truck which then moved and «caused him to fall out of the truck.»In the recent case (Froese v. Wilson) the 17 year old Plaintiff who «became severely intoxicated at a house party» left riding in the cargo box of a pickup truck which then moved and «caused him to fall out of the truck.»in the cargo box of a pickup truck which then moved and «caused him to fall out of the truck.».

For more than a year, prominent Canadian litigators writing for this publication and elsewhere have suggested — wisely — that parties with cases lingering in the courts because of court delays, particularly delays in securing trial dates, should consider moving to arbitration.

In most cases, when a neutral, independent umpire renders a decision based on the contract and the evidence submitted by both parties, it allows the parties to put that issue behind them and move on with the project, even if they are not completely happy with the result.

In Hernando County, we personally meet with and assist pro se parties in dissolution of marriage and (non-DOR) paternity / time - sharing cases to review their Court files to be sure that the appropriate initial forms are filed to move their court case toward final hearinIn Hernando County, we personally meet with and assist pro se parties in dissolution of marriage and (non-DOR) paternity / time - sharing cases to review their Court files to be sure that the appropriate initial forms are filed to move their court case toward final hearinin dissolution of marriage and (non-DOR) paternity / time - sharing cases to review their Court files to be sure that the appropriate initial forms are filed to move their court case toward final hearing.

By talking to a lawyer about your specific case, you can find out more about your legal rights and your options in moving forward with an insurance claim or lawsuit against the responsible party.

The potential for somewhat different results meant that a moving party can not show an «unassailable» case, using the language from the Alberta Court of Appeal's decision in Ghost Riders Farm Inc. v. Boyd Distributors Inc., 2016 ABCA 331.

Next, the court considered the parties» offers to settle, explaining that litigants and their lawyers have a positive obligation to behave in ways that move cases toward resolution.

Finding that the company was never privy to the moving party's confidential information or litigation strategies, the judge found no reason to disqualify the company from continuing to participate in the case.

The rationale for increased judicial supervision is to provide assistance to parties in moving the case forward consistent with the overall objective of the Rules, particularly the proportionality principles.

The applicable rule in this case provides that a party may file a reply factum to respond to any «issue on which the moving party has not taken a position in the moving party's factum».

When the moving party's brief was more readable, the moving party was typically more likely to prevail, as we found the readability score variable significant at the.05 p - level in three of four models.100 The only model where this score was not significant at a tested p - level was based on the isolated sample of state court cases.101

Lastly, we have three dichotomously coded variables for whether the attorney for the moving party had appeared in a greater number of cases, whether the moving attorney had greater firm resources, and whether the moving attorney had greater office resources.

First, some states use a summary judgment standard that is less favorable to the moving party than that in federal court.92 Second, federal court judges handle cases from start to finish, whereas many state court cases are not assigned to individual judges until trial.

Along with the readability scores, the moving party variable is highly significant in the all case and federal case models.

The models above look at the moving party's advantage when having the more readable brief in a given case.

Similarly, Cecil et al. found that defendants moving for summary judgment were awarded summary judgment in full 64 % of the time, whereas plaintiffs moving for summary judgment were awarded summary judgment in full only 39 % of the time.90 In a subsequent study of all federal district court summary judgment activity in 2006, Cecil and Cort found that moving parties succeeded more often (57 %) than non-moving parties (43 %), as was the case for moving parties in federal court in our sample (73 % to 27 %).91 Although success rates in our sample were higher than success rates in the Cecil study and the Cecil and Cort study, a higher success rate is expected given that we excluded motions seeking partial summary judgment from our samplin full 64 % of the time, whereas plaintiffs moving for summary judgment were awarded summary judgment in full only 39 % of the time.90 In a subsequent study of all federal district court summary judgment activity in 2006, Cecil and Cort found that moving parties succeeded more often (57 %) than non-moving parties (43 %), as was the case for moving parties in federal court in our sample (73 % to 27 %).91 Although success rates in our sample were higher than success rates in the Cecil study and the Cecil and Cort study, a higher success rate is expected given that we excluded motions seeking partial summary judgment from our samplin full only 39 % of the time.90 In a subsequent study of all federal district court summary judgment activity in 2006, Cecil and Cort found that moving parties succeeded more often (57 %) than non-moving parties (43 %), as was the case for moving parties in federal court in our sample (73 % to 27 %).91 Although success rates in our sample were higher than success rates in the Cecil study and the Cecil and Cort study, a higher success rate is expected given that we excluded motions seeking partial summary judgment from our samplIn a subsequent study of all federal district court summary judgment activity in 2006, Cecil and Cort found that moving parties succeeded more often (57 %) than non-moving parties (43 %), as was the case for moving parties in federal court in our sample (73 % to 27 %).91 Although success rates in our sample were higher than success rates in the Cecil study and the Cecil and Cort study, a higher success rate is expected given that we excluded motions seeking partial summary judgment from our samplin 2006, Cecil and Cort found that moving parties succeeded more often (57 %) than non-moving parties (43 %), as was the case for moving parties in federal court in our sample (73 % to 27 %).91 Although success rates in our sample were higher than success rates in the Cecil study and the Cecil and Cort study, a higher success rate is expected given that we excluded motions seeking partial summary judgment from our samplin federal court in our sample (73 % to 27 %).91 Although success rates in our sample were higher than success rates in the Cecil study and the Cecil and Cort study, a higher success rate is expected given that we excluded motions seeking partial summary judgment from our samplin our sample (73 % to 27 %).91 Although success rates in our sample were higher than success rates in the Cecil study and the Cecil and Cort study, a higher success rate is expected given that we excluded motions seeking partial summary judgment from our samplin our sample were higher than success rates in the Cecil study and the Cecil and Cort study, a higher success rate is expected given that we excluded motions seeking partial summary judgment from our samplin the Cecil study and the Cecil and Cort study, a higher success rate is expected given that we excluded motions seeking partial summary judgment from our sample.

When considering a case in which the custodial parent wants to move away with the child, the court will consider whether the move is in the best interest of the child, how the move will affect all of the parties involved, and whether the move will impose any increased costs on the parties.

I consider, therefore, that, when there was a plea to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in a case brought here by a writ of error, the first duty of this court is sua sponte, if not moved to it by either party, to examine the sufficiency of that plea, and thus to take care that neither the Circuit Court nor this court shall use the judicial power of the United States in a case to which the Constitution and laws of the United States have not extended that power.

In order to succeed in a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must establish that there is «no genuine issue of material fact» and that the case should be decided in favor of the moving partIn order to succeed in a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must establish that there is «no genuine issue of material fact» and that the case should be decided in favor of the moving partin a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must establish that there is «no genuine issue of material fact» and that the case should be decided in favor of the moving partin favor of the moving party.

In the May 26, 2008 of Texas Lawyer, John Council had an article that begins, «In a mandamus case that could significantly alter one of the hottest federal civil dockets in Texas, the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on May 22 over whether a trial judge's discretion should be limited when a party moves to transfer venuIn the May 26, 2008 of Texas Lawyer, John Council had an article that begins, «In a mandamus case that could significantly alter one of the hottest federal civil dockets in Texas, the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on May 22 over whether a trial judge's discretion should be limited when a party moves to transfer venuIn a mandamus case that could significantly alter one of the hottest federal civil dockets in Texas, the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on May 22 over whether a trial judge's discretion should be limited when a party moves to transfer venuin Texas, the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on May 22 over whether a trial judge's discretion should be limited when a party moves to transfer venue.

In more complex cases or cases where it is taking a long time to move things along to final hearing, the court can conduct status hearings, case management hearings and set deadlines for the parties.

These fears derive from some of the early U.S. cases in which parties came to court complaining of potential costs in the millions (for restoring all backup tape sets or searching through all data on a network) and those cases, having been reported, are clearly going to discourage any party from confidently moving forward with an ediscovery plan in hand.

«I think this case signals that the law and the courts are moving in a direction where they are giving greater freedom to trial judges in contract cases to interpret agreements in such a way that could effectively allow for contractual parties to improve their bargains,» says Eli Lederman, a partner at Lencnzer Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP.

Mediation provides a unique tool in such cases for elders, families and caregivers to move beyond impasse into positive decision - making that meets the needs of all parties, while, in many cases, avoiding costly and unnecessary long term care services.

The parties in this case were Canadian citizens and resided primarily in Ontario until the family moved to Hawaii and the children attended school in Hawaii.

Both parties, through their attorneys, wait for a series of court hearings to move the case forward over a period of months, or, in some cases, years.