But, on
policy grounds related to the administration of justice and the conduct of civil appeals, this Court and courts of appeal should be mindful of the need for finality and efficiency in the civil litigation process.
Not exact matches
U.S. violations of international law, failure to curb covert activities, refusal on «national security
grounds» to release key evidence in the Iran - Contra and
related trials, cooperation with drug runners in pursuit of illegal foreign
policy objectives, and an obedient press all point dangerously towards a national security state.
What you are describing is done under the name «evidence - based
policy» which
grounds on broad efforts to evaluate
policies in the fields of economics, political science, and
related disciplines.
Topics to be discussed include: Court Procedure: An understanding of the civil litigation process in New Jersey as it pertains to negligence claims; Damages: Understanding the standards for, and the differences between Compensatory and Punitive Damages; Facility Maintenance: Identifying potential safety hazards
related to facilities and
grounds, and taking reasonable steps to address common problems; Indemnification: Identifying when the school district is responsible for the actions of its employees, and when it may disclaim coverage; Insurance Coverage Issues: Understanding what is, and is not covered under a school district's insurance
policy, and understanding whether your district will be allowed to choose its attorney or be required to utilize the attorney assigned by the Insurance Company; Negligent Supervision: Examples of school district negligence liability lie within the school, on the athletic field, in the locker room, and on school trips; Sovereign Immunity: Understanding the effect of the New Jersey Torts Claims Act on negligence claims against school districts.
However, opponents of REDD + have criticised it on the
grounds of climate justice as it fails to address underlying issues
related to the participation of indigenous communities, loss of biodiversity and inadequate
policies around deforestation.
With regard to the possible justification on
grounds relating to immigration and integration
policy, the AG argues that it is difficult to avoid a concentration of beneficiaries of international protection by means of less restrictive measures.
To illustrate the problem with accusing judges of bias, given the term's various meanings, the article focuses on recent federal litigation over NYC police stop - and - frisk
policy in which (1) the district judge found «implicit bias» in police practices based on accumulated evidence and expert analysis, (2) the Second Circuit found that the district judge engaged in disqualifying judicial bias because of her comments in a prior
related lawsuit and in the media, and (3) critics accused the Second Circuit of bias in making decisions that were hard to justify on either procedural or substantive
grounds.
The Moscow Arbitrazh Court («Moscow Court «-RRB- set aside the Award in June 2011 on the pleaded
grounds of the arbitrators» non-disclosure
relating to the expert witnesses as well as on the separate
grounds of public
policy and non-arbitrability (the latter two both being
grounds not relied on by NMLK in the set aside application).
(4) A relevant decision may not be taken except on imperative
grounds of public security in respect of an EEA national who: (a) has resided in the UK for a continuous period of at least 10 years before the relevant decision; or... (5) Where a relevant decision is taken on
grounds of public
policy or public security it shall, in addition to complying with the preceding paragraphs of this regulation, be taken in accordance with the following principles --(a) the decision must comply with the principle of proportionality; (b) the decision must be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the person concerned; (c) the personal conduct of the person concerned must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society; (d) matters isolated from the particulars of the case or which
relate to considerations of general prevention do not justify the decision; and (e) a person's previous criminal convictions do not in themselves justify the decision.
Potential consequences of lying could mean the insurer later has cause to cancel your
policy on
grounds of material misrepresentation, Barry said, or if a loss occurs that's
related to the lie, the insurer may not be required to pay that claim.