Sentences with phrase «opening arguments in court»

We ask for your help in recognizing February 5th as a day these youth should have given open arguments in Court.

Not exact matches

MANHATTAN FEDERAL COURT — «Power, greed, corruption» are at the heart of the case against former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, federal prosecutors said Tuesday during opening arguments in the trial.

Public labor members rallied Monday in Albany as the Supreme Court heard the opening arguments of Janus v. AFSCME, a case that challenges automatic union dues paid by public - sector workers.

MAYVILLE - Opening arguments and testimony in the lawsuit involving the environmental impact of a proposed expansion of the county landfill got underway Monday in State Supreme Court in Mayville.

Argument over Thorp, the reprocessing plant at Sellafield in Cumbria, is expected to move from Whitehall to the courts now that John Gummer, Britain's environment secretary, has given his blessing for the plant to open.

Some who trouble to read the opinions in this case will find it ironic — perhaps even bizarre — that on the very day we heard arguments in this case, the Court's session opened with an invocation for Divine protection.

The court rejected the school district's argument that the prayer meetings were an extension of the voluntary, «open forum» prayer meetings upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court last December in a higher - education case, Widmar v. Vincourt rejected the school district's argument that the prayer meetings were an extension of the voluntary, «open forum» prayer meetings upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court last December in a higher - education case, Widmar v. VinCourt last December in a higher - education case, Widmar v. Vincent.

An appellate court in Austin on Thursday, September 24, heard arguments from three open - enrollment charter schools on the constitutionality of Texas Education Code Section 12.115 (c - 1), an automatic revocation provision in Senate Bill 2 passed by the Legislature in 2013.

In another Albany chamber that same morning, a court prepared to hear the opening argument in a long - running education finance case, Maisto v. New York, that contends students from poorer communities are getting much less in per pupil spending — several thousands less — than their wealthier peerIn another Albany chamber that same morning, a court prepared to hear the opening argument in a long - running education finance case, Maisto v. New York, that contends students from poorer communities are getting much less in per pupil spending — several thousands less — than their wealthier peerin a long - running education finance case, Maisto v. New York, that contends students from poorer communities are getting much less in per pupil spending — several thousands less — than their wealthier peerin per pupil spending — several thousands less — than their wealthier peers.

The Virginia Court of Appeals ruled that husband had waived his argument that the circuit court erred in ruling that Husband's adultery was the primary cause of the dissolution of the marriage because Husband failed to cite legal authority in support of his argument in his appellate opening brief as required by Rule 5A: 20 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of VirgCourt of Appeals ruled that husband had waived his argument that the circuit court erred in ruling that Husband's adultery was the primary cause of the dissolution of the marriage because Husband failed to cite legal authority in support of his argument in his appellate opening brief as required by Rule 5A: 20 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virgcourt erred in ruling that Husband's adultery was the primary cause of the dissolution of the marriage because Husband failed to cite legal authority in support of his argument in his appellate opening brief as required by Rule 5A: 20 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of VirgCourt of Virginia.

That was how Jay Floyd, an attorney for the state of Texas, opened his oral argument in front of the U.S. Supreme Court — in Roe v. Wade.

That kind of argument can be successful only if it challenges the General Court's findings of fact in paragraph 170 of the judgment under appeal, to the effect that «[t] he «last interested person» in the transparent and open tendering procedure in this case was candidate 4.

However, the courts are more flexible and open to argument in favor of enforceability when determining what is «reasonable».

To accept the plaintiffs» «but - for» argument, the court added, «could open numbers of cases in all areas of law to the same argument.»

Participants will be invited to design various tools to support online courts — for example, tools to help litigants structure their legal arguments, organise their documents, negotiate settlements without advisers, as well as systems that will promote «open justice» and machine learning solutions that will help analyse all the data generated by the online courts (these examples were drawn, in part, from discussions with HM Courts & Tribunals Sercourts — for example, tools to help litigants structure their legal arguments, organise their documents, negotiate settlements without advisers, as well as systems that will promote «open justice» and machine learning solutions that will help analyse all the data generated by the online courts (these examples were drawn, in part, from discussions with HM Courts & Tribunals Sercourts (these examples were drawn, in part, from discussions with HM Courts & Tribunals SerCourts & Tribunals Service).

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.

«Your lawyer Kyla Lee has provided copies of several court decisions in support of her argument [that] because [the officer] had you provide a breath sample immediately after stopping your vehicle, although he was aware that it contained an open bottle of liquor, I can not be satisfied that the ASD «FAIL» was accurate.

The appeals court found that the two statements were proper because, in the first instance, it rebutted the defense's opening statement that the jury would hear both sides and, in the second instance, it countered defense counsel's closing argument that «the evidence of innocence is compelling.»

However, without explaining whether Valdes has been overruled by Gall or is distinguishable, the Ramirez opinion affirms simply because «the district court properly calculated the advisory guideline range, considered the relevant § 3553 (a) factors, articulated its reasons in open court, considered Ramirez's arguments, and had a reasoned basis for its decision.»

An Ontario Superior Court judge has ordered a mistrial over a Crown prosecutor's «highly improper» opening address that alluded to animal - like behaviour and pre-emptively addressed the arguments the defendant would be making in testifying on his own behalf.

A different decision from the High Court could not only have had implications for creditor confidence in the Islamic finance market going forward, but also could have opened the floodgates for issuers to use the argument that their existing Islamic financings are not Shari'ah - compliant as a precursor to force creditors into financial restructurings on more advantageous terms.

But when the court accepted the privacy commissioner's arguments that the offender's actions could undermine the administration of justice, harm participants in the justice system and potentially discourage people from accessing the justice system, there was no acknowledgement that the same concerns go directly to the heart of the open - court principle and balanced interests that supported the first complete publication of the same document.

The Court of Appeal held that if it had been open to the claimant to enforce the first order, there would have been strength in the defendant's argument.

In it, Wedge accepted arguments by a lawyer for the Vancouver Sun and other media outlets, who argued that the sweeping ban being sought would impact the open court principle and the media's ability to cover an important criminal case.