Sentences with phrase «occurs by the order of the court»

Not exact matches

If by God's «glory» we understand a majestic court scene in which God is seated upon a great throne, lording it over the creation and gloating in his divine magnificence, then the phrase suggests ideas that are the exact opposite of the «Galilean vision» of the Love which is self - giving, gladly receptive, utterly ungrudging in generous openness to all that occurs in the created order.

It's a safe bet the whole mess will end up in court — again — assuming someone doesn't get a court order to prevent one of the meetings (likely the one being held by the Ognibene crowd) from occurring in the first place.

Accordingly, a variety of consequential injuries were held not to constitute takings... Nor was government held liable for the extra expense which the property owner must obligate in order to ward off the consequence of the governmental action... But the Court also decided long ago that land can be «taken» in the constitutional sense by physical invasion or occupation by the government, as occurs when the government floods land permanently or recurrently.

Accused went to cottage of JC with whom she previously cohabited — Accused found JC with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, and accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against conviction dismissed — Although trial judge did not address analytical steps in order, he properly analyzed evidence and concluded that injuries sustained by victim were not accidental and could not have occurred in any other fashion than as stated by victim — Having provided reasons for accepting victim's evidence, trial judge was entitled to reject accused's evidence — Trial judge's reasoning, though skeletal, permitted accused and appellate court to determine how and why finding resulted.

(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.

Interestingly, it's not clear what the appellate order means since the court of appeals agreed with the prosecution that «Mr. Stern's new trial motion could not be granted... [b] ut... what can occur to Mr. Stern once the remittur issues is limited by the double jeopardy provisions of our Constitutions.»

If no payment is required by paragraph 1, an additional payment to the insured person's dependants and the persons, other than a former spouse of the insured person, to whom the insured person had an obligation at the time of the accident to provide support under a domestic contract or court order, to be divided equally among the persons entitled, in an amount equal to $ 25,000 if the accident occurred before October 1, 2003 or, if the accident occurred on or after October 1, 2003,

Among the modifications the court may consider is a reallocation of primary custodial responsibility, effective if and when the relocation occurs, but such a reallocation shall not be ordered if the relocating parent demonstrates that the child's best interests would be served by the relocation.

Reasons for judgement were released recently by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, confirming that a second Court ordered defense medical exam is inappropriate solely in anticipation of an event which may not occur.

Both solutions will occur because the power of the news media and of the internet, interacting, will quickly make widely known these types of information, the cumulative effect of which will force governments and the courts to act: (1) the situations of the thousands of people whose lives have been ruined because they could not obtain the help of a lawyer; (2) the statistics as to the increasing percentages of litigants who are unrepresented and clogging the courts, causing judges to provide more public warnings; (3) the large fees that some lawyers charge; (4) increasing numbers of people being denied Legal Aid and court - appointed lawyers; (5) the many years that law societies have been unsuccessful in coping with this problem which continues to grow worse; (6) people prosecuted for «the unauthorized practice of law» because they tried to help others desperately in need of a lawyer whom they couldn't afford to hire; (7) that there is no truly effective advertising creating competition among law firms that could cause them to lower their fees; (8) that law societies are too comfortably protected by their monopoly over the provision of legal services, which is why they might block the expansion of the paralegal profession, and haven't effectively innovated with electronic technology and new infrastructure so as to be able to solve this problem; (9) that when members of the public access the law society website they don't see any reference to the problem that can assure them that something effective is being done and, (10) in order for the rule of law, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the whole of Canada's constitution be able to operate effectively and command sufficient respect, the majority of the population must be able to obtain a lawyer at reasonable cost.

(II) An order that requires the exchange of the child for parenting time to occur in a protected setting determined by the court;

Payment can be made by mail in the form of a cashier's check / money order, in person by coming to room 110 on the first floor of the Clerk of Court's Office, at the Clerk's Office in the county in which the infraction occurred, or by paying online by debit / credit card.

deciding how often the child sees their birth family, and whether this contact is supervised or unsupervised (Note: The conditions around the child seeing their birth family could be specified by a court order — for example who should have contact, the type of contact, how often it will occur and if visits need to be supervised or not.)

Permanent Alimony - spousal support ordered to be paid at a specified, periodic rate until modified by a court order, the death of either party, or the remarriage of the Obligee, whichever occurs first.

(b) The relocation of the child has occurred without agreement of the parties, court order, or the notice required by RCW 26.09.405 through 26.09.560...; or

By law, custody orders are not modifiable in Kansas, unless you can demonstrate to the court that a material change of circumstances has occurred.

Change of custody is another option the court may exercise, but it is a response the court reasonably would want to reserve for serious infractions or where it is evident that the cooperation anticipated by the order is not going to occur.

(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