Sentences with phrase «necessary orders from the court»

Not exact matches

From time to time, we may use your Personal Information and Traffic Data: (a) if we need to respond to valid legal process, including, but not limited to, a search warrant, subpoena, or court order, and any other instance when we believe we are required to do so by law; or (b) if we deem it necessary to disclose Personal Information or Traffic Data, in our sole discretion, to comply with any applicable law, regulation, legal process or governmental request, or to protect our rights or interests.

Since the Supreme Court has now prevented itself from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II «natural born citizen» based on the Kenyan / British citizenship of Barack Obama's father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a «citizen» born in Hawaii or otherwise) as a prerequisite to qualifying to serve as President of the United States under the Constitution — the Court having done so at least three times and counting, first before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors — it would seem appropriate, if not necessary, for all Executive Branch departments and agencies to secure advance formal advice from the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel as to how to respond to expected inquiries from federal employees who are pledged to «support and defend the Constitution of the United States» as to whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II «natural born citizen».

For the avoidance of doubt, the 1st Defendant / Respondent is hereby ordered forthwith to take all the necessary steps to delete from the current register of voters the list of persons whose names were submitted to this court on 29th June 2016 as persons who registered with the NHIS Card.

An earlier statement from Lawyers of Mr. Woyome insisted that «the Supreme Court of Ghana erred by linking Alfred Agbesi Woyome to the Waterville contract by «necessary linkage» using the now «residual unspecified Jurisdiction'to ground «Justice «as their main Principle in ordering a refund of monies paid to Mr. Alfred Agbesi Woyome legally under the laws of Ghana.»

It was notorious for many reasons: First, the court ordered enormous state and city expenditures, intending to attract white schoolchildren from the suburbs to the Kansas City schools so as to provide the minimum number of white children that proponents of desegregation considered necessary for a desegregated or «unitary» school.

LA R.S. 46:2135 This Louisiana law allows a court to enter a temporary restraining order, without bond, as it deems necessary to protect from abuse the petitioner.

Koch Media may also disclose personal data to law enforcement, or the appropriate civil authorities to enforce legal rights and comply with the law, or to comply with an order from a government entity or other competent authority, or when we have reason to believe that a disclosure is necessary to address potential or actual injury or interference with our rights, property, reputation, operations, users or others who may be harmed or may suffer loss or damage, or when we believe that disclosure is necessary to protect our rights, fraud protection and / or comply with a judicial proceeding, court order, or legal process served on Koch Media.

Courts generally regard this approach as necessary in order not to discourage executors and trustees from carrying out their duties;

(1) the temperament and developmental needs of the child; (2) the capacity and the disposition of the parents to understand and meet the needs of the child; (3) the preferences of each child; (4) the wishes of the parents as to custody; (5) the past and current interaction and relationship of the child with each parent, the child's siblings, and any other person, including a grandparent, who may significantly affect the best interest of the child; (6) the actions of each parent to encourage the continuing parent child relationship between the child and the other parent, as is appropriate, including compliance with court orders; (7) the manipulation by or coercive behavior of the parents in an effort to involve the child in the parents» dispute; (8) any effort by one parent to disparage the other parent in front of the child; (9) the ability of each parent to be actively involved in the life of the child; (10) the child's adjustment to his or her home, school, and community environments; (11) the stability of the child's existing and proposed residences; (12) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved, except that a disability of a proposed custodial parent or other party, in and of itself, must not be determinative of custody unless the proposed custodial arrangement is not in the best interest of the child; (13) the child's cultural and spiritual background; (14) whether the child or a sibling of the child has been abused or neglected; (15) whether one parent has perpetrated domestic violence or child abuse or the effect on the child of the actions of an abuser if any domestic violence has occurred between the parents or between a parent and another individual or between the parent and the child; (16) whether one parent has relocated more than one hundred miles from the child's primary residence in the past year, unless the parent relocated for safety reasons; and (17) other factors as the court considers necessary.

In Upjohn Co. v. United States, 6 the United States Supreme Court held that a company's attorney — client privilege extends to company counsel's communications with employees in certain prescribed circumstances.7 Rather than providing a simple objective test, the Upjohn court instead established five factors to guide courts in determining whether the company's privilege should extend to counsel's communications with its employees: (1) whether the communications were made by employees at the direction of superior officers of the company for the purpose of obtaining legal advice; (2) whether the communications contained information necessary for counsel to render legal advice, which was not otherwise available from «control group» management; (3) whether the matters communicated were within the scope of the employee's corporate duties; (4) whether the employee knew that the communications were for the purpose of the company obtaining legal advice; and (5) whether the communications were ordered to be kept confidential by the employee's superiors, including that the communications were considered confidential at the time and kept confidential subsequent to the interview.8 When these elements are established, courts generally consider communications between company counsel and an employee to be within the scope of the company's attorney — client privilCourt held that a company's attorney — client privilege extends to company counsel's communications with employees in certain prescribed circumstances.7 Rather than providing a simple objective test, the Upjohn court instead established five factors to guide courts in determining whether the company's privilege should extend to counsel's communications with its employees: (1) whether the communications were made by employees at the direction of superior officers of the company for the purpose of obtaining legal advice; (2) whether the communications contained information necessary for counsel to render legal advice, which was not otherwise available from «control group» management; (3) whether the matters communicated were within the scope of the employee's corporate duties; (4) whether the employee knew that the communications were for the purpose of the company obtaining legal advice; and (5) whether the communications were ordered to be kept confidential by the employee's superiors, including that the communications were considered confidential at the time and kept confidential subsequent to the interview.8 When these elements are established, courts generally consider communications between company counsel and an employee to be within the scope of the company's attorney — client privilcourt instead established five factors to guide courts in determining whether the company's privilege should extend to counsel's communications with its employees: (1) whether the communications were made by employees at the direction of superior officers of the company for the purpose of obtaining legal advice; (2) whether the communications contained information necessary for counsel to render legal advice, which was not otherwise available from «control group» management; (3) whether the matters communicated were within the scope of the employee's corporate duties; (4) whether the employee knew that the communications were for the purpose of the company obtaining legal advice; and (5) whether the communications were ordered to be kept confidential by the employee's superiors, including that the communications were considered confidential at the time and kept confidential subsequent to the interview.8 When these elements are established, courts generally consider communications between company counsel and an employee to be within the scope of the company's attorney — client privilege.9

As the Court of Appeal saw it, the critical features of s 1 are that the defendant must have acted in an anti-social manner in the past and that an order must be necessary to protect the public from further and future anti-social acts.

A further provision will be inserted into PHA 1997 whereby the criminal court, when acquitting an alleged perpetrator of any offence, may, if it considers it necessary to do so to protect a person from harassment by the alleged perpetrator, make a restraining order against the alleged perpetrator.

In a relatively rare consideration of the impact of Art 8 upon financial provision, Peter Hughes QC sitting as a deputy High Court judge in M v M [2006] All ER (D) 58 (Jun) considered the impact of an application for disclosure from a third party and set out some useful guidance on the basis that Art 8 reinforced the principle that an order for disclosure was an intrusion into an individual's privacy that was oppressive and unwarranted unless it could be shown to be both necessary and proportionate to the issues in the case.

Generally, in those cases, a legislative body has to authorize the appropriation «voluntarily» from whatever source of funds it choses to impose, and usually, when push comes to shove, state and local governments do pay the judgments they owe (there are limited federal bankruptcy options for municipalities and states), although there are instances of state governments stubbornly refusing to take the actions necessary to comply with court orders directing that public schools be funded for many, many years.

Similarly, as Gibson J.'s order flowed directly from the consent order of Fitzpatrick J., the court concluded that Gibson J. also had the necessary jurisdiction to the make the second order.

The Court held that it was not necessary for the appellant to show that every female prisoner required to live at an AP has suffered the detriment of being placed at an AP far from her home in order to establish a case of direct discrimination on grounds of sex, and considered that the risk of being placed far from home is much greater for women than for men due to the smaller numbers of female offenders, and the policy decision that the particular vulnerability of women required to live in an AP means that all APs should be single sex.

South Dakota HB 1093 (2007) Allows Chief Justice to suspend, toll, extend, or otherwise grant relief from deadlines, time schedules, or filing requirements imposed by otherwise applicable statutes, rules, or court orders, whether in civil cases, criminal cases, administrative matters or any other legal proceedings as determined necessary.

20 (1) An appeal to the Divisional Court shall be heard in the region where the hearing or other process that led to the decision appealed from took place, unless the parties agree otherwise or the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice orders otherwise because it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice.

Based on the forgoing, Morawetz J. found the recognition of the Final DIP Facility Order was necessary for the protection of the debtor company's property and for the interests of the creditors.9 In reaching this conclusion, Morawetz J. took into account the public policy exception set out in section 61 (2) of the CCAA which states: «Nothing in this Part prevents the Court from refusing to do something that would be contrary to public policy.»

If necessary, your lawyer can file a lawsuit in the court system, in order to provoke a reaction from the insurance company.

This is often an efficient way to get the necessary information from you in order to prepare separation agreements or court documents.

In ordering the parties to parent according to a parallel parenting plan, the court must enter a written explanation regardless if the parties agree, indicating why the deviation from the regular Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines is necessary or appropriate.

If the court determines it is necessary to deviate from the parenting time credit, it shall state its reasons in the order.

The court should not shrink from enabling a party who had obtained a freezing order to use the information obtained under the freezing order for contempt proceedings if that was necessary to protect that party's position.

[32] In order to address this allegation of irreparable harm it is necessary to isolate the harm that is said to arise from the precedent established by the judgment of the British Columbia Supreme Court, on the one hand, from the harm said to result from the refusal to stay that judgment pending the hearing of the appeal, on the other.

Where a disclosure made pursuant to this paragraph is required by law, such as in the case of an order from a court or administrative tribunal, the minimum necessary requirements in § 164.514 (d) do not apply to disclosures made under this paragraph.

On the rare occasions that conduct is a relevant factor, the following approach may be adopted; Allegations of conduct should be included in Form E although the parties should be discouraged from raising allegations of conduct unless absolutely necessary; The district judge should clarify at the directions appointment whether conduct is being pursued and, if so, order particulars to be given of the precise allegations relied on and give directions as to the evidence to be adduced by each party; An alternative route may be to defer the filing and service of conduct statements until after the family dispute resolution hearing to allow potential settlement to be explored; It should be taken into account that conduct is one of the relevant considerations in determining whether proceedings should be transferred to the High Court, although conduct alone is unlikely to be sufficient to justify a transfer.

Some argue that this is not necessary at all: that the regulators are perfectly adequate at doing their job; that research indicates that consumers themselves do not feel that they are restrained from having recourse to the courts in order to achieve redress; and that the disadvantages to business greatly outweigh any individual benefit.

... a covered entity that receives a court order from a government for information or data shall provide such information or data to such government in an intelligible format or provide technical assistance as is necessary to obtain such information or data in an intelligible format or to achieve the purpose of the court order.

The primary purpose of this first meeting with the solicitor is to give the clients the reassurance and confidence of having an appropriate family solicitor on their mediation support team to advise them, when necessary and help them with paperwork and obtaining a financial consent order from the court, at the end of the mediation process.

A parent with custodial rights can apply for a child support order from the state through the Child Support Services Division.The division can help with court proceedings and work with local district attorneys, if necessary, to establish a noncustodial parent's child support obligation.

You can obtain the necessary paperwork from the clerk of court in the superior court of the county that granted the divorce or issued the original custody order.

Unless you can get the court to order the child's protective separation from the pathology of the narcissistic / (borderline) parent during the recovery of the child's authenticity, then there is nothing that can be done, because you can not protect your child and the child must do what is necessary to survive in the pathology surrounding the child.

Unless you can get the court to order the child's protective separation from the pathology of the narcissistic / (borderline) parent during the recovery of the child's authenticity, then there is nothing that can be done, because you can not protect your child and the child must do what is necessary to survive in the pathology

(1) the temperament and developmental needs of the child; (2) the capacity and the disposition of the parents to understand and meet the needs of the child; (3) the preferences of each child; (4) the wishes of the parents as to custody; (5) the past and current interaction and relationship of the child with each parent, the child's siblings, and any other person, including a grandparent, who may significantly affect the best interest of the child; (6) the actions of each parent to encourage the continuing parent child relationship between the child and the other parent, as is appropriate, including compliance with court orders; (7) the manipulation by or coercive behavior of the parents in an effort to involve the child in the parents» dispute; (8) any effort by one parent to disparage the other parent in front of the child; (9) the ability of each parent to be actively involved in the life of the child; (10) the child's adjustment to his or her home, school, and community environments; (11) the stability of the child's existing and proposed residences; (12) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved, except that a disability of a proposed custodial parent or other party, in and of itself, must not be determinative of custody unless the proposed custodial arrangement is not in the best interest of the child; (13) the child's cultural and spiritual background; (14) whether the child or a sibling of the child has been abused or neglected; (15) whether one parent has perpetrated domestic violence or child abuse or the effect on the child of the actions of an abuser if any domestic violence has occurred between the parents or between a parent and another individual or between the parent and the child; (16) whether one parent has relocated more than one hundred miles from the child's primary residence in the past year, unless the parent relocated for safety reasons; and (17) other factors as the court considers necessary