Sentences with phrase «oral arguments under»

After all, if a Supreme Court advocate like Morrison, with twenty oral arguments under his belt and who played a substantial role in researching and drafting the District's 15,000 word brief due at the Court tomorrow is regarded as fungible, what hope is there for the rest of us?

You may vary from this formula after you have at least twenty oral arguments under your belt and you have a really good reason for it.

Not exact matches

Oral arguments are scheduled to take place in the U.S. Court of Appeals on Thursday in a years - long civil litigation over the U.S. Department of Justice's failure to fully release under FOIA records about the prosecution of activists over their activism.

In December, I reported on this blog about the oral argument before the Texas Supreme Court on behalf of Neighborhood Centers, Inc. (BakerRipley) which had been sued for retaliatory termination under the Texas Whistleblower Act, Chapter 554 of the Government Code.

On September 27, 2016, the entire United States District Court for the District of Columbia will hear oral arguments in West Virginia, et al. v EPA, to which E&E Legal is party, challenging the EPA's «Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units» rule under section 111 (d) of the Clean Air Act, over the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulation that will cripple, and in many cases, shut down coal - fired power plants.

«In a final written brief before the high court hears oral arguments, Delaware's lawyers argued that New Jersey claimed an exclusive right to land under the Delaware River only after BP «convinced them to reverse New Jersey's decades - long policy of cooperation» on boundary - straddling projects along the Delaware River.»

Under the new leadership, the FCC declined to defend its position on Section 276, instead conceding 10 minutes of oral argument time to the intervenors.

Second is today's oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, which «concerns the torture of Ogoni leaders in Nigeria, but at stake is the future of the law under which this case was brought, the Alien Tort Statute.»

At oral argument, counsel for Cuozzo argued that the PTAB should apply the Phillips claim construction analysis to IPR proceedings for several reasons: 1) BRI only applies when a claim under review may be freely amended; 2) Congress intended the IPR process to be «adjudicatory» rather than «examinational;» and 3) the two different standards would result in anomalies, including situations where claims mean «one thing for patentability in the Board, but a wholly different thing for infringement in the district courts.»

Presentation of oral argument to the Connecticut Supreme Court on behalf of a bridge contractor concerning the scope of a statutory waiver of the state's sovereign immunity for disputed claims under contracts with the state for the design, construction, construction management, repair, or alteration of any highway, bridge, building or other public works of the state.

Based on the oral argument, some are predicting that a narrow Supreme Court majority is on target to recognize an individual right to keep firearms under the Second Amendment and thus, may shoot down the D.C. ban.

You can listen to the proceedings online by visiting the court's website and clicking on links listed under «Live Oral Arguments.»

The Crown conceded in oral argument, and the Court confirmed in its decision, that non-status Indians are recognized as Indians under section 91 (24).

The Court heard oral argument this morning in Astrue v. Ratliff, a case challenging the Eighth Circuit's determination that fees awarded to a prevailing party under the Equal Access to Justice Act belong to the attorney, not the client.

As Justice Alito suggested at the Cyan oral argument, why would Congress want to bar «a claim in state court under a state cause of action that mirrors the ’33 Act» but then allow «the state court to be able to entertain the real thing, an actual ’33 Act [claim].»

Based on transcripts of oral arguments, the U.S. Supreme Court appears genuinely determined to identify a middle ground between rigid application of a machine - or - transformation test and the previous «anything under the sun» approach.

Following up on his appearance on the Oral Argument podcast, Michael Dorf has a fascinating post up this morning at «Dorf on Law» in which he tackles the intriguing question of whether state courts may choose to «gratuitously» be bound by federal precedents that don't actually bind them under the Supremacy Clause.

(iii) Within 30 days from the notification of the letter of charge (this term can be extended up to additional 30 days upon request), the person under investigation has the right to exercise a series of defensive activities, including: (i) filing a statement of defence and the related documentation with Consob's Sanction Office, (ii) requiring a hearing before Consob's Sanction Office to deliver its oral argument, and (iii) accessing the files of the proceeding (including the investigation).

I have a SCOTUSBlog preview of next Tuesday's oral argument in Hall v. Hall, addressing when a judgment dismissing one action is final and appealable when multiple actions were consolidated for all purposes under FRCP 42.

As an example of the middle ground between a rescission claim on the one hand and no claim on the other hand, during the recent oral arguments of the appeal in the Raibex v. AllStar Wings in the Court of Appeal for Ontario, in October 2017, the esteemed bench repeatedly asked why some claims by franchisees should not be made under section 7, rather than under the rescission remedy.