Sentences with phrase «of judicial decision making»

For those interested in embedding opinion content into existing theories of judicial decision making... consider Yonatan Lupu & James Fowler's paper recently posted to the SSRN.

What is the one single improvement the Judiciary could implement in order to increase public trust of the judicial decision making process?

He continued that by giving legal effect to the Convention, we have transferred it out of the political arena altogether and into the domain of judicial decision making where public accountability has no place.

Not exact matches

A judicial review («JR») is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body; they are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the conclusion reached.

«I think there are implications in a narrow area such as judicial decision - making, as well as in a more general area of «understanding and explaining human behavior,»» says Mocan.

And in the crisis, emergency decisions were made that have been effectively removed from judicial review, including violations of state corporate law and issues raised by the Constitution.

Judicial decision making calls for wise employment of that singular form of human thought known as legal reasoning.

JUDGING THE JUDGES Patrick McKinley Brennan's review «The Forms Behind the Laws» (April) begs fundamental questions of interpretation, blurs the distinction between legislating and judging, and proposes a mode of judicial interpretation that would, in its practical application, be indistinguishable from judges who make decisions based on personal preference.

Patrick Brennan replies: Upon reading Joseph Viviano's charges against me, I had to ask myself: Who is this Brennan that «proposes a mode of judicial interpretation that would, in its practical application, be indistinguishable from judges who make decisions based on preferences?»

Among them are the rights to: bullet joint parenting; bullet joint adoption; bullet joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); bullet status as next - of - kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent; bullet joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; bullet dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support; bullet immigration and residency for partners from other countries; bullet inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; bullet joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment; bullet inheritance of jointly - owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); bullet benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; bullet spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home; bullet veterans» discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns; bullet joint filing of customs claims when traveling; bullet wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; bullet bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child; bullet decision - making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her; bullet crime victims» recovery benefits; bullet loss of consortium tort benefits; bullet domestic violence protection orders; bullet judicial protections and evidentiary immunity; bullet and more...

But doesn't Iran have Islamic scholars and Imans making decisions at the highest levels of the Government and Judicial systems in Iran?

Supporters of the right to abortion who criticize the German decision make exactly the same arguments — the same Lincolnian arguments — against judicial supremacy that supporters of the right to life who criticize Roe v. Wade make.

Unconscionable conduct (agrees with NFF that they have not provided protection and support reforms «to provide transparency in the supply chain» and recognise that «certain classes of suppliers... are predisposed to suffering from a special disadvantage...»; misuse of market power (legal framework must «level the balance of market power in negotiations...», «ensure transparency in the transmission of market prices» and «not allow for final market risks to be borne by the primary producer» and provide «transparency of contract processes» - specifically, Canegrowers supports effects test and a process giving ACCC greater power to «regulate anti-competitive behaviour and impose penalties», shifting «the decisions framework from the judicial system to a regulatory system» which would make it more accessible to small producers); collective bargaining (notes limits of Sugar Industry Act (Qld); authorisation and notification approval costly and limited and not a viable alternative - peak bodies should be able to «commence and progress collective bargaining with mills on behalf of their members» and current threshold too restrictive)» competitive neutrality (mixed outcomes - perverse outcomes in the case of natural monopolies - suggest remove «application of competitive neutrality provisions to natural monopoly essential services»)

This decision was made due to lack of financing, following the Supreme Judicial Court decision prohibiting utilities from charging ratepayers for pipeline construction.

This completely misses the point of judicial review, which is that it is designed to stop bad decision - making.

Perhaps the minister should look at the quality of decision - making in his own department and its agencies before seeking to limit judicial review.

If the Supreme Court wasn't functional for an extended period then various different and contradictory decisions made by the appeals courts would build up and there would be different «laws of the land» in each federal judicial district.

This made the political circumstances surrounding the case far different from those of past judicial decisions.

And, third, such judicial funding decisions inappropriately intrude upon the power of states and localities to set their own public priorities and to make appropriate decisions.

So, for example, instead of just utilizing money to arm police officers in schools, we also are allowing individual school communities to make decisions about putting more mental health for students, to provide advocacy in the support system and not just move kids out of school or automatically engage them in the judicial system that we know can happen too often.

A landmark judicial review that was set to shine a light on decisions made behind closed doors by regional schools commissioners has been settled out of court.

Either the individual who filed the complaint or the student who was found to have violated any of the Standards of Conduct may appeal the decision of the Judicial Panel within 4 business days by writing a letter to his or her academic dean setting forth the reasons why the appeal is being made.

The declaration should also guarantee procedural rights of peoples and communities, in particular access to environmental information, public participation in decision making and access to judicial remedies, in order to enable citizens and communities to play an active role in protecting their health and environment from air pollution.

Public participation (described as access to information and judicial remedy, as well as participation in decision making) in development projects not only has legal precedent in international accords but also has been incorporated into the procedures of international lending organizations.

Undeterred, Friends of the Earth, Solar Century and Home Sun then sought and obtained backing for a legal challenge from High Court Judge Mr Justice Mitting, who said ministers were «proposing to make an unlawful decision» and as a result the court would be «amenable to a judicial review».

Finally, he brought yet another judicial review application in Ontario to, in the Court's words, «reconsider the surrender decision made by a previous Minister of Justice and confirmed by another Minister of Justice.»

Whether or not this is truly a matter of «reform», it is critical that judicial decisions should continue to be made by judges, independently from the executive branch of government.

Requiring the Crown to weigh proportionality, the court says, «would greatly expand the scope of judicial review of discretionary decisions made by prosecutors and put at risk the adversarial nature of our criminal justice system by inviting judicial oversight of the numerous decisions that Crown prosecutors make on a daily basis.»

The aim, for example, to broaden the range of judicial decisions that are made by non-judges (and even non-lawyers), under the «supervision» of judges, is more concerned with greater centralisation of services and with savings in the judicial salaries budget.

One is the ability of a decision making body to participate in or commence judicial review proceedings.

Whatever the outcome it needs to be recognised that policy views of the extent to which courts and tribunals should be able to interfere with business decisions will determine whether any change in the law, judicial or legislative is made.

In addition to these administrative mechanisms, a patient may turn to the courts for judicial review of either the substantive decision (i.e. the decision to cover (or not) a particular medical service) or the process used to make that decision.

The deputy principal then made an application to the High Court to review this decision, by way of judicial review (a review procedure for decisions / actions of public bodies).

The way in which the Trial Chamber reacted to Alternate Judge Sow's decision to make a public statement on the Taylor Trial; the exclusion of his statement from the official transcript of the hearing; and the recent information suggesting irregularities in the process which the SCSL judges invoked to discipline their judicial colleague for alleged misconduct all underscore the need for greater transparency on this issue than we have so far received from the SCSL.

Thank you to each of you who used the judicial evaluations of the Chicago Council of Lawyers to make informed decisions about judicial elections.

And although the Diocesan Bishop controls respondent Monastery of St. Sava and is the principal officer of respondent property - holding corporations, the civil courts must accept that consequence as the incidental effect of an ecclesiastical determination that is not subject to judicial abrogation, having been reached by the final church judicatory in which authority to make the decision resides.

We also represent employers before all levels of courts in wrongful dismissal actions, occupational health and safety matters, judicial reviews of decisions made by administrative tribunals and to obtain injunctive relief.

Although the study showed that judges are less susceptible to the illusions of framing and the representativeness heuristic than lay people, the authors concluded that each of the five illusions had a significant impact on judicial decision making.

He has lectured in Canada and abroad on diverse legal topics, and has published on such subjects as judicial decision - making, Canada - US trade, the law of evidence and constitutional law.

Excerpts on the decision to publish and whether to issue summary affirmances might be helpful in training externs and clerks in a judicial opinion writing course to give the students background in some of the decisions judges must make in addition to how to decide cases and write the opinions.

The respondents asserted (as characterized by the court) that «the proper function of judicial review is to determine whether the decision itself was reasonable and whether the decision makers had the jurisdiction to make the decision.

You may want to consider judicial review if you were a part of a dispute resolution proceeding at the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) which did not go in your favour and you believe that the decision made by the arbitrator at the hearing was unreasonable or unfair.

(39) On an application for judicial review of the arbitrator's decision, no determination or selection that the arbitrator was required to make under subsection (29) shall be overturned unless the determination or selection was patently unreasonable.

In order to perform their duty effectively, lawyers research on laws, the intent of those laws and the judicial decisions that are relevant to their client's circumstance so as to make a knowledgeable decision.

The Library of Congress explains that, as a civil law country, Chinese judges make rulings based on statutes without deference to other court decisions — unlike the U.S. common law system, which is based on judicial interpretations.

It seems that the overall goal as to the publication of specifically judicial decisions is to make accessible in a form which is not just verifiably exact but also as an unalterable text.

In recent years, there has been growing judicial emphasis on hearing and exploring the «voice» and «wishes and feelings» of the child when making decisions about their welfare.

Whereas the sources of Ofsted and the secretary of state's powers make their decisions plainly amenable to judicial review by Shoesmith, it is less clear that judicial review is available as a remedy against her employer.

Companies, law firms, lawyers and individuals have to go through a large number of case laws and judicial decisions to identify or retrieve information necessary to support legal decision - making or finding something relevant to their case.

Judge Your Judges, a project of public radio station WNYC in New York that will focus on enabling voters to make more knowledgeable decisions about New York judicial elections.