Sentences with phrase «of case law interpreting»

The statute itself is relatively new and there is not a great deal of case law interpreting this law.

Between 1985 and 2010, there was an enormous amount of case law interpreting and applying the test.

Not exact matches

In each case, the law must be so interpreted as to designate some possible course of action as right.

Judging the constitutionality of laws by the Court's «appraisal of the wisdom of legislation,» as he accused the Court of doing in this case, «is an attribute of the power to make laws, not of the power to interpret them.»

The key shift was in the 1970s, when the Court veered away from strict interpretation of the original meaning of the Convention and adopted instead a policy of interpreting the Convention creatively and, through case law, extending its scope way beyond traditional ideas of political freedom into questions of economic and social policy.

In Assemblyman Sheldon Silver's corruption case, in which no witness testified directly to knowledge of an illegal quid pro quo, how Judge Valerie Caproni tells jurors to interpret the evidence as it relates to the law could sway deliberations.

In a case in which no witness testified directly to knowledge of an illegal quid pro quo, how Judge Valerie E. Caproni tells jurors to interpret the evidence as it relates to the law could sway deliberations — a fact certainly not lost on the government or the defense.

The judge asked if anyone had a problem with his comments, one of which was that at the conclusion of evidence in the case, he would instruct the jury how to interpret the law.

That would mean that the documents like Constitution or Declaration of Human Rights would be interpreted differently in each case and lead to depending on the subjectivity of the court or the judge in individual matters and make judicial assessment as the primer source of the law.

Case law may interpret this differently, but on the face of it, it would appear that these exemptions apply to each and every separate bank account that have automatic deposits of exempt funds.

«We know that we have the stronger legal arguments in this case and that California courts have interpreted state law correctly, including within the parameters of takings analysis,» says Angela Howe, Legal Director for the Surfrider Foundation.

The advice provided by a skilled family law lawyer takes into account not just the text of the applicable legislation, but the case law interpreting that legislation, the applicable common law principles and the specific circumstances of the family as described by the client.

Notwithstanding this, the SCC case law seemed to read this nuance out of Article 5 (1) FD and interpreted the Spanish law executing the FD in light of its own doctrine on the matter.

In this post, Ciara examines a decision which seems at first view to follow up on case law such as Zambrano, McCarthy and Dereci — but finally ends up being more about interpreting the Family Reunification Directive in light of the fundamental right to family life.

In particular, according to the European Commission's guidance, the concept of dependence in case of family members of third - country nationals should be interpreted with reference to the analogous concept in EU free movement law.

Second, one of the main ways to research case law interpreting a statute is by doing a boolean search on the code section of that statute.

In a jurisdiction that has prided itself on the importance of «doctrine» in interpreting the law, the fact that the major French language university opts for content with the lowest common denominator, while a foreign owned commercial publisher offers an authoritative work by leading academics and legal practitioners, is a remarkable case of role reversal, as well as a reflection on how times have changed.

However, it then proceeded to interpret the new addition in article 207 TFEU of «commercial aspects of intellectual property» in light of this case - law.

The Repeal Bill does provide that retained EU law should be interpreted in the light of pre-exit ECJ case law and general principles, so indirect effect will probably continue in some form.

The order contained three questions: (i) whether Article 4a (1) FD must be interpreted as prohibiting Member States from making the execution of an EAW subject to the possibility of retrial in cases where a conviction has been rendered in absentia; (ii) whether Article 4a (1) FD is valid in light of Articles 47 and 48 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; and (iii) whether, under Article 53 of the Charter, it can grant a higher level of protection than that provided for under EU law.

Every time you change a title or section number, you impair the ability of people doing legal research (both judges and lawyers) to find previous case law interpreting the meaning of the statute.

Both sides will adopt legislation to ensure this, and on the EU side the Court of Justice will be the final authority, as it will be EU law, while UK courts will be required to interpret the UK law in the light of Court case law, and will even have the possibility to refer questions for up to eight years.

The chief difference is that in the United States (which has a Common Law Structure) the judge usually does not decide the case, but interprets the law (Trier of Law) and with a few exceptions, will determine the sentence once guilt is fouLaw Structure) the judge usually does not decide the case, but interprets the law (Trier of Law) and with a few exceptions, will determine the sentence once guilt is foulaw (Trier of Law) and with a few exceptions, will determine the sentence once guilt is fouLaw) and with a few exceptions, will determine the sentence once guilt is found.

In earlier case law, Fiona Shevill, the Court had held that in case of defamation by means of a newspaper article distributed in several Member States, Article 5 (3) must be interpreted as giving the victim a choice between fora.

The recent case - law on by object restrictions has moved between a broader interpretation of this category to include more agreements than the traditional list of «hardcore restrictions», and the necessity to interpret the object category restrictively.

However, the Court of Justice found at paragraph 24 of Opinion 1/91 that the «interpretation mechanism» whereby the EEA court would have to interpret the rules of the agreement in conformity with the case - law of the Court of Justice would not be sufficient to ensure the legal homogeneity between the EEA states and the EU Member States.

More importantly, according to the Polydor - case - law of the CJEU, even equally worded provisions have to interpreted in the object of the treaty / regime they are part of.

Sole custody orders issued by an Arizona judge may be appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, which will review the case to determine if there were apparent errors in interpreting the law -LSB-...]

CONSIDERING that, as any national court, the Unified Patent Court must respect and apply Union law and, in collaboration with the Court of Justice of the European Union as guardian of Union law, ensure its correct application and uniform interpretation; the Unified Patent Court must in particular cooperate with the Court of Justice of the European Union in properly interpreting Union law by relying on the latter's case law and by requesting preliminary rulings in accordance with Article 267 TFEU;»

Justice Robert A. Graesser's decision is a relatively straightforward application of the Rules as interpreted by case law.

I would suggest that the emphasis on the democracy principle is reminiscent of the Court's emphasis on the principle of the rule of law in the recent case of H v Council, where the Court interpreted the Treaty provisions on the Court's jurisdiction with regard to CFSP - matters through the prism of the principle of the rule of law.

This division essentially means that it is for the European Court to interpret EU law, whereas it is for the national Court to apply that interpretation to the facts of the case.

For example, Professor Adam Benforado «s new paper explores how spatial situations affect the law - related behavior and thinking of various participants in criminal cases, while another of his recent articles argues that the context of the videotape evidence at issue in Scott v. Harris had a profound and unacknowledged influence on the way the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted that evidence.

He investigates the similarities and differences between the national judicial treatment in applying and interpreting EU and ECHR law and concludes that accession will not render these differences moot: in fact, the CJEU clarified in the Kamberaj case that EU law does not require the disapplication of domestic law conflicting with the Convention — the effects of the ECHR will therefore continue to depend on the national constitutions, not the law of the EU (pp. 156 - 158).

In both cases, the CJEU interprets Treaty provisions affecting the CFSP broadly in light of transversal constitutional principles (democracy and rule of law).

29 That said, where a court of a Member State is called upon to review whether fundamental rights are complied with by a national provision or measure which, in a situation where action of the Member States is not entirely determined by European Union law, implements the latter for the purposes of Article 51 (1) of the Charter, national authorities and courts remain free to apply national standards of protection of fundamental rights, provided that the level of protection provided for by the Charter, as interpreted by the Court, and the primacy, unity and effectiveness of European Union law are not thereby compromised (see, in relation to the latter aspect, Case C - 399 / 11 Melloni [2013] ECR I - 0000, paragraph 60).

Marcia Oddi at Indiana Law Blog shares this interesting piece from the AMA Med News about the National Judges» Medical School, a program designed to equip judges with better knowledge of medical science to help them interpret complex health care cases.

Case law interpreting each section the United States Code (or comparable state statutory codifications of statute law) are accompanied by what are known as «annotations» which briefing state the holdings of all legal cases interpreting a particular statutory section and usually briefly stating its holding.

The majority decision of the justice of the United Kingdom Supreme Court may be set to become the «final statement» on the presence of EU law in the UK constitutional order in both senses of the word: the Miller case may well prove to be chronologically the final time that the UK's highest court is called upon to interpret the nature of EU law before the United Kingdom's putative withdrawal from the European Union; in the other sense of the word, the dicta in the case may serve to be the final and definitive statement in an ongoing 40 year constitutional saga initiated by the United Kingdom's accession to the European Union's predecessor in 1973.

Although this approach is sensible and laudable, the discretion demanded by subjective considerations undermines the certainty provided by the presumptions, resulting in the exacerbation of complexity, particularly where the exceptions themselves are couched in ambiguous language that can not be understood without reference to the case law interpreting that language.

If the matter involves interpreting statute and case law or applying law to a set of facts, an LPO can offer little assistance.

Also, keep in mind that this is only the primary materials and doesn't include treatises and textbooks and digests and law review articles interpreting the law which you need in practice to utilize this corpus of primary legal materials, and which can be referenced by courts in cases.

As a result, parents with shared custody of their children must be able to access and understand the case law interpreting section 9 in order to have any hope of gauging the amount of support they may be obliged to pay or entitled to receive, and indeed whether they meet the 40 % threshold for shared custody at all.

By contrast, in a common law system, such as Hong Kong, cases are the primary source of law, while statutes are seen as incursions into the common law and thus interpreted narrowly.

There is obviously a difference between merely taking the EC (t) HR into consideration when interpreting the Charter and a legal determination that the EU is formally bound by the ECHR and the case law of the ECtHR as a result of which the ECJ must examine the validity of EU law in the light of the EC (t) HR prior to accession.

Both of these code - like summaries of the case law are protected by copyright and not available to the public free of charge despite their relevance in how the statutes are interpreted.

The case law describing the range of circumstances invoked by open - ended lists of factors and interpreting phrases such as «undue hardship,» and similar idiomatic expressions such as «unless the court otherwise orders» and «unless it would be inappropriate,» must be consulted to properly understand the law, creating a significant barrier to justice for people not trained in legal research and the jurisdictional nuances of stare decisis.

In theory, one could of course try to interpret the notion of «[a] ssessing the compatibility» broadly so that cases of interpreting EU secondary law would be included (see AG view, para 132).

Furthermore, in accordance with the settled case law of the German Constitutional Court, constitutional rights enjoy indirect third party effect (Drittwirkung), and courts must interpret private law in their light (see the Lüth case — BVerfGE 7, 198).

Amongst other aspects detailed by IAReporter, the case is particularly notable for its explicit use of domestic administrative law to interpret the provisions on indirect expropriation in the Germany - Poland BIT.