Sentences with phrase «open court rather»

Not exact matches

«Given the important public policy issues at stake, we have also asked the court to hold its hearing in open rather than behind closed doors.

A clause in the nondisclosure agreement requires that disputes be mediated in private arbitration, where proceedings are confidential, rather than in open court.

CT closely tracks Christian student groups and how they fare on campus, including InterVarsity's key victory at Tufts, Alec Hill's response to the Supreme Court's Hastings decision and its aftermath, and the 15 Christian student groups that left Vanderbilt rather than open up leadership roles to non-Christians.

The bottom line: GOP donors whisper that if forced to choose, they'd rather protect control of the Senate, especially if there is an opening on the Supreme Court.

«Because of the pride on how we tackled terrorism and defeated Boko Haram terrorists through our gallant troops and partners in the twilight of the previous administration, which is the reason I have insisted on open and public trial of my stewardship rather than secret trial in the court as being canvassed by my prosecutors.»

The move would see prosecutors justify attempts at extradition in open court, ridding the current process of its lack of transparency and putting the final decision in the hands of a judge rather than a politician.

«Because of the pride on how we tackled terrorism and defeated Boko Haram terrorists through our gallant troops and partners in the twilight of the previous administration, that is the reason I have insisted on open and public trial of my stewardship rather than secret trial in the court as being canvassed by my prosecutors.»

Having chosen to withdraw its decision rather than defend it at the High Court, the Vale of Glamorgan will now have to review its policy on humanist membership of the SACRE, and take a fresh decision on the application of Kathy Riddick, which remains open.

Also, the judge is within his rights to punish the potential juror if he determines that the potential juror is actually lying about his ability to be impartial in an effort to evade jury service rather than because he sincerely believes that he can't be fair, and judges have wide authority to determine the credibility and truthfulness of statements made to him in open court (i.e. if the trial judge finds that you are lying, this determination will almost always be honored by an appellate court considering the judge's actions).

«Indeed, the courts must remain open for those who do not have access to personal computers and need to file in paper, rather than electronic, form.»

Indeed, the Illinois Supreme Court overlooked the clear substantive canonical violations for which the Church disciplined Dionisije, violations based on Dionisije's conceded open defiance and rebellion against the church hierarchy immediately after the Holy Assembly's decision to suspend him (a decision which even the Illinois courts deemed to be proper) and Dionisije's decision to litigate the Mother Church's authority in the civil courts rather than participate in the disciplinary proceedings before the Holy Synod and the Holy Assembly.

Rather, the Court agreed that the application judge, leaving the choice of dispute resolution proceedings open to the parties granted better flexibility and that a trial would not grant any material advantage as argued by the appellant.

Be that as it may, distress matters because a recent court case (Vidal Hall — v - Google) held that only distress rather than financial damage was needed to open up a claim against a data controller for compensation under the Data Protection Act (DPA) and for the time being this ruling stands.»

Certain terms are open to various interpretations; one might therefore conclude that it is not the Court to blame, but rather the drafters of the Treaties (p. 98).

The court noted that the defendant «executed the mediation agreement, attended with full authority to settle, made an opening statement (consistent with the position maintained all along) and offered to settle the action by way of a dismissal not with, but rather without costs.»

While getting courts to provide open access to case law has proven to be a longer & more challenging process given the legitimate privacy & informational integrity concerns raised above, these concerns should inform the implementation of government open access policies rather than bar wholesale access outright.

The English courts do not open their doors to just anyone who wishes to take advantage of our divorce laws, but rather requires spouses to demonstrate a real connection to this country, and are constantly on guard against «forum shopping».

But rather than opening the Pandora's box of liability for employers, a better way to get the desired result would be to reconsider Otis, either by the Court or by the legislature, to give some sort of Good Samaritan protection to an employer who tries to exert control in those circumstances...

The Court noted that the employer was open about its purpose — it wished to ensure the member's claim was dealt with by the Court rather than by the Pensions Ombudsman.

The court, rather summarily, dismissed all of the appellant's arguments save and except for costs of the trial, which the court reduced to $ 76,000.00, on the grounds that the trial judge appeared to have mistakenly believed that a particular offer to settle had been open for acceptance longer than had in fact been the case.

And there is very much this sense, as one of the Court of Appeal judges in these cases put it, that reopening these cases would make our judicial system grind increasingly slowly, so the response to the fact that the judicial system is underfunded — needs more judges, needs more court time, needs more investment — is to say no to cases and to refuse to open cases rather than to fund the system more and the upshot of that of course, is a reduced access to jusCourt of Appeal judges in these cases put it, that reopening these cases would make our judicial system grind increasingly slowly, so the response to the fact that the judicial system is underfunded — needs more judges, needs more court time, needs more investment — is to say no to cases and to refuse to open cases rather than to fund the system more and the upshot of that of course, is a reduced access to juscourt time, needs more investment — is to say no to cases and to refuse to open cases rather than to fund the system more and the upshot of that of course, is a reduced access to justice.

Yes, this looks a lot like the Pushpanathan list of factors, [14] but the difference is that these factors are being considered not to decide on the standard of review — correctness, reasonableness and patent unreasonableness — but rather to determine the extent to which the court should defer to an administrative decision in the context of a particular case and a particular question — that is, the range of options that are legally open to the decision maker.

I took the plunge and set up Smith Bernal International and always had an interest in technology, always had an open mind to the fact that these industries such as court reporting, the legal industry itself were very traditional precedent driven industries that were driven more by how things were done in the past rather than how things might be done in the future.

A nice way to put things.And there are so many things you've mentioned that are quite obvious but are not easy to spot - like letting yourself open and vulnerable in a relationship.A relationship and marriage are very different from any other form of connection between two human beings and handling it needs special care no doubt.Very healthy advice from you was to not run to the court every time there is a problem but rather try to work it out - something that most young people just don't seem to understand.

Your family's circumstances remain undisclosed as well, rather than discussed in court papers or in open court.

Mediation provides an environment where personal or sensitive issues can be managed privately, rather than in open court.

In spite of the fact that this will cost the Sutton Groups» insurers, rather than the Sutton Group themselves, it is still a bad decision on the part of the courts and will open up all kinds of suits against companies, groups and individuals in the future.