Sentences with phrase «other courts do»

Confusion arises when one court removes some of the restrictions and the other court does not.

Not exact matches

At the opening of the trial in Rome, the U.S. investment bank the other defendants asked a three - judge panel at the Court of Accounts, which rules on abuses of public funds, to reject the case in an acknowledgement that the judges do not have jurisdiction, Marco Fratini, one of the judges, said.

Technology and security experts said that if the U.S. government was able to obtain Apple's source code with a conventional court order, other governments would demand equal rights to do the same thing.

As the tenants went away, so did the retailers; many of the other restaurants in that food court didn't make it.

There is, of course, Apple, which hasn't done anything notable this year other than get nailed in court in the Great E-Book Conspiracy.

Most other countries» bankruptcy courts do not work this way.

She said that while arbitration bars customers from pursuing class - action cases, it doesn't block them from other legal venues like small claims court.

«What we don't know are the details of how the permitting process will work, whether a permit will be granted when requested, what conditions would be attached to it, and absent of specific context with those actual details, it would be difficult for the court to give anything other than a somewhat speculative answer,» he said.

The difference with the tariffs that this government is bringing in — $ 330 million or more on tariffs and interestingly enough they're taking Sony to court for hesitating to pay tariffs that this government on the other side says doesn't actually exist, but if it doesn't exist how can they be taking them to court for not paying them?

Canada's Federal Court could be given greater powers to combat unacceptable behaviour by domestic and foreign «patent trolls» — companies that do not make or sell a product but sue other companies for patent infringement based on existing patent rights the troll has secured.

While the Dutch court may be making gradual steps toward crypto being recognized as a currency, other organizations do not recognize it as such.

The judge agreed, saying, «The court finds the incident in question is an isolated incident, the respondent entered successful medical treatment, the respondent does not pose a threat to himself for others.»

Some industry critics say it too closely mimics the Department of Labor fiduciary rule that was struck down by the courts last week, while others say it doesn't go far enough.

Once this reaches court, I predict his case will completely fall apart, as do most other suits of this nature.

Listen Humble themselves (that is, don't control the situation, and don't assume they understand or perceive the situation perfectly) Identify how they contributed to the situation (whether consciously or unconsciously, directly or indirectly) Take responsibility Apologise Allow the other person to express what they want done (and do it, if it is within the pastor's ability, and truly helpful) Support the other person's decisions, even if the pastor disagree with them Empower the other person at every step Part friends if possible, and at peace, if at all possible (and never go to court — Jesus and Paul call this dangerous and ridiculous, respectively)

If, on the other hand, the new Court majority really does favor Scalia's reading of «free exercise,» religious exemption is out the window for the foreseeable future.

As the late legal historian Kermit Hall notes, the court in this case «did not believe it was granting Catholics a benefit to which persons of other beliefs are not entitled.»

In every other court, doesn't genetic evidence hold up?

Does this stop Christians from tying up the supreme court with law suits concerning school prayer, abortion, gay marriage, or numerous other absurdities?

Funny that the Denver shooter was in court and NO ONE EVER MENTIONED IF HIS CHRISTIAN OR ANY OTHER FAITH... I swear if his name was Mohammad than the whole country would be in flames... BUT he was mentally ill so it was justified and the case was closed quietly so everyone can go back to what they do since it has no value to the media... OPEN YOUR EYE and ears...

Every single other way they fought genocide doesn't work, including charity and the International Criminal Court, because genocide is still going on today.

It's like rendering a verdict when the other person didn't even know court was in session.

If we're reading Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, on the other hand, we soon recognize that Twain is having all sorts of fun with deliberate anachronisms, and we don't expect any sort of historical accuracy.

While there are difficult verses (such as «eye for eye, tooth for tooth» and «turn the other cheek»), in context, they do not contradict (with that case, Moses was setting up punishment in court, while Jesus was telling how individuals should live).

It does happen that churches, in councils, sessions and other courts, are led beyond themselves, powered beyond prejudice, liberated beyond convention, overwhelmed by the capacity for new risks.

The consti «tution does back up these justices and if the trial was held in Berkley and the courts had gone the other way I have no doubt that their interpretation of the law would back them up in the same matter.

«Why,» I asked, «did you and so many other constitutional lawyers stop criticizing the Court's abortion decisions after most of you had been highly critical of Roe v. Wade?»

Great — so, either these four young men never were abused, but simply saw an opportunity to shake down an individual with a questionable reputation (the «where there's smoke» strategy), and Pastor Long either caved in to the pressure, or sought an expedient route (possibly used before) to make the problem go away; OR, these really are four young men who've been abused, but rather than make the pastor answer for what he did to them in a court of law, and spare other young men in the future the trauma they experienced, they allowed their silence to be bought.

Take no heed for the morrow, resist not the evil person, never divorce, give to anyone who asks, don't defend oneself in court — such an ethic strikes moderns as so other - worldly as to be absurd.

In the now famous Goodridge case, the Court leaned critically on the insistence that procreation is not a requirement of marriage, and that the laws on marriage «do not privilege procreative heterosexual intercourse between married people above every other form of adult intimacy.»

He will be reminded of what that simple old sage remarked in ancient times, «When they meet together, and the world sets down at an assembly, or in a court of law, or a theater, or a camp, or in any other popular resort, and there is a great uproar and they praise some things which are being said or done, and blame other things, equally exaggerating both, shouting and clapping their hands, and the echo of the rocks and the place in which they are assembled redoubles the sound of the praise or blame — at such a time will not a young man's heart, as they say, leap within him?

In 2001, in a decision that side - stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would.

Because the Court does not seem to be disposed to correct this serious error, it is put upon the Congress of the US to perform its duty to support and defend the Con - sti - tu - tion of the US, by the use of its authority to apply checks and balances to other branches of the gov, when abuses of power and the exercise of excesses of power are evident.

Moreover, the Supreme Court doesn't only look at those specific words, but can reference other docu - ments of the time to gain insight as to the intentions of the Founding Fathers which they have done in the concept of the separation of Church and State.

According to the logic of the Court, the Free Exercise Clause does not protect churches in these circumstances, unless some other constitutional right, such as Free Speech or the right of parents to control the upbringing of their children, is violated by the governmental intrusion.

The court does not have the power to force Italy to take down the representations of Jesus on the cross, but if its ruling stands and Italy does not comply, the door would be open for others to sue on the same grounds, court spokesman Stefano Piedimonte told CNN.

If it were an accident, the first time it caused rashes and or nose bleeds and diarrhea, they would have written what caused it in my Medical Records to stop others from causing the adverse reactions, but no, they have to try to prevent a Law Suit and write that I am delusional about the adverse reactions so every Doctor after that forced the adverse reactions on me and or refused to give me the Medical Treatment actually need, while they make money off charging the government for the Toxic Harmful Drugs that a Judge ordered them not to give me, tut they just falsely called me delusional about the Court Orders, to made money poisoning me with Toxic Drugs and Rash Creams, but normally they do that to their suspecting Victims to make money off doing Kidney transplants like they did to my Uncle, but they will not replace mine, because that is what they planned to do to kill me, just ask their associate assassin Dr Kanter of the Minneapolis VA, of course he will say I am delusional after he assaulted me saying the other Hospital Labs were wrong about that Blood Test that show the harm they caused.

Lawyers for Kentucky's Department of Insurance are encouraging a judge to hold Medi - Share, a cost - sharing ministry that helps pay medical bills for Christians who don't smoke or abuse alcohol (among other qualifications), in contempt for continuing to operate in the state more than a year after a circuit court judge ordered the Florida - based group to stop until it meets Kentucky insurance regulations.

They did so, however, in a ruling that did more than merely remind the Governor and other state officials that they had «no power to nullify a federal court order.»

He said: «The opposition said they will not go to the courts (to dispute the result) because they do not trust the courts so that means... the other options they have may lead to more chaos and problems than we have now.»

In other words, when the Court looks to whether the government has a compelling interest (i.e. the «importance» the government places on a particular regulation), numerous exceptions to the law's applicability suggest the government doesn't view the «importance» such as to rise to the level of a compelling interest.

I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by other departments of the government.

Sadly, the Canadian Supreme Court and Parliament made assisted suicide into a «right,» and in so doing imposed the moral philosophy of liberalism — free choice limited only by the prohibition against harming others — on everyone.

This can be done by doing anything from making sure the other children of the family are being taken care of when the parents and victim have to go to court, to helping connect the family with a qualified trauma therapist.

To the extent permitted by law, we will disclose your information to government authorities or third parties if: (a) required to do so by law, or in response to a subpoena or court order; (b) we believe in our sole discretion that disclosure is reasonably necessary to protect against fraud, to protect the property or other rights of us or other users, third parties or the public at large; or (c) we believe that you have abused the Sites or the Applications by using them to attack other systems or to gain unauthorized access to any other system, to engage in spamming or otherwise to violate applicable laws.

Small claims court cases are much cheaper than superior court cases for both the plaintiff (the person doing the suing) and the defendant (the person being sued) because the parties are not allowed to have any attorneys represent them and other rules that simplify the lawsuit process, making the whole thing much cheaper, faster, and easier.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER The Windsor Court Hotel is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate against associates or job applicants on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, age, national origin, handicap, veteran status, or any other condition protected by applicable state or federal laws, except where a bona fide occupational qualification applies.

The Court does not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, religion, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, national origin, citizenship, veterans status, sexual orientation, gender perception, or any other basis prohibited by applicable federal, state or local law.

10 September — ACCC alleges RPM against SKINS The ACCC has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Skins Compression Garments Pty Ltd alleging, amongst other things, that Skins engaged in RPM by inducing and attempting to induce a sporting retailer in Melbourne not to advertise a 20 % discount off the RRP of the goods and that Skins withheld supply to the retailer because they did advertise the 20 % discount.

The High Court unanimously allowed the appeals, concluding that the «decision in Barbaro does not apply to civil penalty proceedings and a court is not precluded from receiving and, if appropriate, accepting an agreed or other civil penalty submission.&rCourt unanimously allowed the appeals, concluding that the «decision in Barbaro does not apply to civil penalty proceedings and a court is not precluded from receiving and, if appropriate, accepting an agreed or other civil penalty submission.&rcourt is not precluded from receiving and, if appropriate, accepting an agreed or other civil penalty submission.»