Sentences with phrase «previous case law»

A rough guideline will cite previous case law, and from that predictions can be made.

Lower courts let stand previous case law that allow public unions to do so.

The awards in both cases mark a significant increase in fatal awards when they are compared with previous case law.

The Georgia Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in 2003 regarding parental relocation, effectively turning previous case law in the state on its ear.

Every time you change a title or section number, you impair the ability of people doing legal research (both judges and lawyers) to find previous case law interpreting the meaning of the statute.

Overturning the first instance judge's finding, the Court set out three principles drawn from previous case law, and concluded that the judge «did not attach sufficient weight to the character of the invention as claimed in each of the claims in issue, the contribution that its disclosure has made to the art and the need to confer a fair degree of protection on the patentee».

The court reviewed the limited previous case law concerning incorporation by reference of contract terms, specifically cases which had confirmed that reference to the International Chamber of Commerce arbitration rules in a contract — vis - a-vis dispute resolution mechanism — was sufficient to incorporate the exclusion agreement therein (see Marine Contractors Inc v Shell Petroleum Development Co of Nigeria [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep 77, [1984] LS Gaz R 1044).

The arguments (based upon previous case law) were presented to the Supreme Court as if the only options were binary — subjective or objective.

In order to come to a decision the court considered previous case law and relied in particular on the cases of Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustee Co Ltd [1982] 1 QB 133, [1981] 1 All ER 897 and Ramsden v Dyson [1866] LR 1 HL 129.

The challenge was tremendous and was successfully met by our persuasive argument that when previous case law is wrong, it should not be observed anymore even if the precedent is of the Highest Authority i.e. the Supreme Court of Cyprus.

According to previous case law of the Constitutional Court, the right to a fair trial in the Spanish Constitution requires that, if a person has been convicted in his absence, a surrender for the execution of that conviction must be made conditional on the right to challenge the conviction in order to safeguard that person's rights of defence, even if he had given power of attorney to a lawyer who effectively represented him at the trial (paras 20 and 22).

In contrast, previous case law in this area (e.g. decisions about bonuses) required the employee to show that the employer had acted «arbitrarily» or «capriciously ``: arguably this was a lower threshold for employees than having to show that «no reasonable employer» would have made the decision.

«I too support the view that critique evidence is rarely appropriate,» Justice Mary Lou Benotto wrote on behalf of the court, referring to previous case law on the issue.

Everything I said above is either written in the Federal Child Support Guidelines or supported by previous case law.

Mr. Butler cited previous case law and in particular the case of SMV v. Murray, 2014 CanLIii 2417 (Supreme Court of Canada) which indicates that only a properly attested to and sworn report of the Police Officer can substantiate a 90 IRP driving prohibition and Mr. Butler argued that there was an irregularity in the process by having the adjudicator consider any UNSWORN report even if it incorporated the findings of what appeared to be a SWORN report.

Confronted with these facts, the SCC realised that if it decided to simply uphold its previous case law, the Spanish Constitution would clearly be in conflict with Article 4a (1) FD as amended in 2009.

Following the previous case law of the Court, particularly the DRI case, the level of protection ensured in the EU is quite demanding and the respect of same level of protection has to be ensured before transferring personal data to third countries (see in particular para. 96 in Schrems).

Contrary to its previous case law on the Convention, the Court would then have adopted a reasoning like in Intertanko where the Court held that a treaty (the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in that case) as a whole could not have direct effect.

This is so because, in its previous case law, the Court often refers to the duty of solidarity in the context of the application of the loyalty clause stipulated in Article 4 (3) TEU (see e.g. Joined Cases 6/69 and 11/69, para. 16).

The Court held with respect to the court proceedings exception — interpreting previous case law — that it is not confined to pleadings and various other internal documents exchanged with respect to pending proceedings (para 68).

Rather, it decided to follow its previous case law, with the unfortunate consequence of leaving quite some questions unanswered.

I'll cite and discuss some previous case law on the matter.

However, the definition of what is «sufficiently effective» is not given by the previous case law, neither that of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) nor that of the CJEU.

Firstly, it is not very clear how this judgment relates to previous case law, especially with respect to the earlier mentioned condition of «does not entail implementing measures».

However, in two recent preliminary rulings, the Court has had the opportunity to clarify its previous case law.

No - one had then expected all defendants to be able to make a «Pt 36 offer» without producing the settlement money up front: the government's consultation paper and previous case law had suggested this was appropriate only for defendants such as public sector defendants who were self - evidently «good for the money», although Lord Woolf's reports had considered such a change in 1997.

The petitioner argued that laptops were fundamentally different from the closed container analogies used in previous case law, more similar to homes or the human mind, given their capacity for storage and ability to record activity.

In finding Commission Decision 2002/520 establishing the Safe Harbor to be invalid (para. 106), the Court affirms the need for a high standard of data protection as set out in its previous case law such as Digital Rights Ireland (Joined Cases C - 293 / 12 and C - 594 / 12), and holds that while data protection standards in third countries need not be «identical» to those in the EU, they must be «equivalent» (para. 73).

I challenged the constitutionality of the law successfully and convincingly argued that previous case law to the contrary was wrong and should not be followed.

That ruling is of crucial importance, but their lordships went on to consider two other points figuring in the previous case law — what «relates to» means and whether the respondent must have had knowledge of the disability.

Previous case law, i.e. Taricco I and Melloni, pervaded the primacy of EU law, but from Jeremy F. we also know that Member States enjoy a -LSB-...]