Sentences with phrase «previous decision in the case»

Following some lengthy analysis of the facts and the previous decisions in the case, the district court «concludes that defendants are liable for breaching their fiduciary obligations and are liable beginning on August 16, 2001 — or for three funds the later date institutional share classes become available — for the actual loss in excessive fees paid and for the lost investment opportunity of this breach.»

Not exact matches

In its decision, the 9th Circuit cited a previous case establishing that «circumstantial evidence of intent, including... statements by decisionmakers, may be considered in evaluating whether a governmental action was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.&raquIn its decision, the 9th Circuit cited a previous case establishing that «circumstantial evidence of intent, including... statements by decisionmakers, may be considered in evaluating whether a governmental action was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.&raquin evaluating whether a governmental action was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.»

What would be more likely in this case would simply be a newer court that would overturn the previous decision.

Silver was convicted of using his political influence for political favors; the conviction was tossed last summer, when appellate judges in the 2nd Circuit ruled that the definition of «official acts» had been changed by a previous Supreme Court decision in the public corruption case of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.

Some have argued that the Supreme Court in this case misinterpreted and misapplied its previous decisions in Abu Ramadan and Another v The Electoral Commission and Another; Suit No.

«In our view, following the previous decision of this court in the Abu Ramadan case (supra) by which the use of the cards for registration was declared unconstitutional, the continued presence of names on the register that derive their identification from the said cards renders the register not reasonably accurate or crediblIn our view, following the previous decision of this court in the Abu Ramadan case (supra) by which the use of the cards for registration was declared unconstitutional, the continued presence of names on the register that derive their identification from the said cards renders the register not reasonably accurate or crediblin the Abu Ramadan case (supra) by which the use of the cards for registration was declared unconstitutional, the continued presence of names on the register that derive their identification from the said cards renders the register not reasonably accurate or credible.

The unanimous decision from a panel of judges on Thursday supported two previous losses in the same case for Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in which the free - market think tank the Competitive Enterprise Institute sought documents related to a multi-state effort to investigate energy companies for allegedly profiting by «creating misperceptions» about climate change.

Although based on Lamberth's previous rulings in the case, he seems likely to rule in favor of the plaintiffs and issue a permanent injunction, Robertson predicts that stay or a new version of it would remain in place while the decision is appealed.

European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter Court) has in one of its decisions (upholding the previous case - law) said the following:

The Judge highlighted the case of The Old Co-operative Day Nursery Ltd v OFSTED [2016] EWHC 1126 (Admin) in which Coulson J, held that an OFSTED inspector's conclusion had been irrational because she failed to have regard to the history of the nursery or previous reports in reaching her decision.

To the extent that the Amgen defendants were arguing that the Supreme Court decision established new standards of liability to be considered, the 9th Circuit noted that it had already considered in its previous case that fiduciaries are not required to perform an act that would do more harm than good to retirement plan participants.

With that in mind, I'm going to do my best to explain why this case is different from previous cases, and what this may mean for «pit bulls» in the state of Ohio if the decision stands.

Here, btw, is a roundup of previous Cariou v. Prince posts, including readings, reviews, and info about the book I made, Canal Zone Richard Prince YES RASTA: Selected Court Documents from Cariou v. Prince, which contains the transcript from Prince's amazing 7 - hour deposition in the case: Early days of THE BOOK: the five most ridiculous things about the Richard Prince copyright decision The Richard Prince decision?

The decision references a previous case in which «the court found that certain published comments were not defamatory because they were so ludicrous and outrageous as to be unbelievable and therefore incapable of lowering the reputation of the plaintiff in the minds of right - thinking persons.»

The unanimous decision from a panel of judges on Thursday supported two previous losses in the same case for Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in which the free - market think tank the Competitive Enterprise Institute sought documents related to a multi-state effort to investigate energy companies for allegedly profiting by «creating misperceptions» about climate change...

As in the previous two cases, the UK's main concern was again that the contested decision was adopted on the basis of Article 48 TFEU instead of Article 79 (2)(b) TFEU.

Finally, the third paragraph provides that in cases where a Union citizen has resided in the host Member State for the previous 10 years, «imperative grounds of public security» must be brought forward to justify an expulsion decision.

In coming to its decision, the Crown will consider the various circumstances of the case such as the seriousness of the offence, the age of the accused, the accused's previous criminal record, etc..

The case, Wilson v SRA, in which the client suffered a serious psychological injury working for the State Rail Authority is a highlight of his career and a landmark case, in which a full bench of the NSW Court of Appeal overturned a previous decision of that same Court.

The German patent office will most likely treat the Federal Patent Court's opinion on the photo gallery patent as binding case law for the purposes of the utility model revocation proceedings; if not, Apple can always ask the Federal Patent Court to review the decision, and a panel presumably consisting of partly the same people would probably affirm the previous decision in the new context.

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 decisioIn 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 decisioin 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.

Moreover, the Court also uses extensive and systematic references to earlier case law to put its decision in context with the previous jurisprudence.

Nonetheless, other observers — to which I would count myself — have rather read the decision as the confirmation of the principles laid out by the Court in its previous jurisprudence on the topic (see also the coverage of the case on this blog).

You didn't specify which country, but in the U.S. the legal system is full of precedents: previous case decisions from which a lawyer can argue your case or against your case.

«At the same time, there is a general sense, reinforced by the Supreme Court decision, that mandatory minimums brought in by the previous government in a number of cases went too far,» he said after an event in Waterloo, Ont.

Previous authority which had focussed on whether the lack of candour and disclosure was material to the decision or agreement made was still relevant but, as Lady Hale explains, in a case like Sharland where the husband was guilty of fraudulent non-disclosure, the burden of proof is on the perpetrator of the fraud to demonstrate that the absence of material disclosure would not have made any difference to the agreement reached or order made.

The judge in this case, Justice Matheson, even relied on Levant's previous online defamation case to help inform her decision in this one.

As an example, taking into account the impact of judges» previous decisions in related cases can provide a useful benchmark, which in turn adds to the information being considered in terms of risk and cost.

In his analysis of the announcement at SCOTUSblog, Lyle Denniston notes that the Court passed on a previous opportunity to decide the issue, suggesting that there may be a connection between its change in composition and its decision to hear these caseIn his analysis of the announcement at SCOTUSblog, Lyle Denniston notes that the Court passed on a previous opportunity to decide the issue, suggesting that there may be a connection between its change in composition and its decision to hear these casein composition and its decision to hear these cases.

The decision not to follow the seventh edition was easy for us: we had adopted the previous style (abbreviations with periods) and had been using it for the thousands and thousands of case citations in our publications.

My most recent article was from October, 2017 when it seemed like much of the legal instability plaguing employment lawyers over the previous year had been resolved due to the court's decision in North, which followed many practitioners» 2017 «case of the year,» Wood.

With an even number of justices on the court, they could deliver a split decision, in which case the previous decision of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals would stand, and House Bill 2 would be fully implemented.

(1) where the previous decision does not reflect the values of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; (2) where the previous decision is inconsistent with or «attenuated» by a later decision of the Court; (3) where the social, political, or economic assumptions underlying a previous decision are no longer valid in contemporary society; (4) where the previous state of law was uncertain or where a previous decision caused uncertainty; and, (5) in criminal cases, where the result of overruling a prior decision is to establish a rule favourable to the accused.

The cases in these areas remained relatively consistent with previous decisions, but with some expansion, or at least clarification, of some human rights issues such as concurrency of proceedings, consent to discrimination, and costs against regulators.

Russian system does rely on precedents; however, the Judges also compare cases and may in certain areas on law use previous decisions as guidelines.

When this happens, they use previous decisions of Courts in similar cases to fill in the gaps and help them make a decision.

In my judgment, the opinion of the majority of the court in that case is in conflict with its previous decisions, with a great weight of judicial authority in other slaveholding States, and with fundamental principles of private international laIn my judgment, the opinion of the majority of the court in that case is in conflict with its previous decisions, with a great weight of judicial authority in other slaveholding States, and with fundamental principles of private international lain that case is in conflict with its previous decisions, with a great weight of judicial authority in other slaveholding States, and with fundamental principles of private international lain conflict with its previous decisions, with a great weight of judicial authority in other slaveholding States, and with fundamental principles of private international lain other slaveholding States, and with fundamental principles of private international law.

However, as Justice Kane noted, the issue argued in the case before him had not been argued in any of those previous decisions.

The California Court of Appeals recently released a decision that upheld a trial court's ruling to set aside their previous dismissal of an injury case filed by a woman who was hurt in an accident involving a passenger bus that was allegedly caused by the dangerous and reckless conduct of the bus driver.

Aboriginal Title in British Columbia: Tsilhqot «in Nation v. British ColumbiaA very readable case study that examines previous court decisions about the status of Tsilhqot «in Nation Aboriginal rights and land title claims in British Columbia.

The Court of Appeal echoed Abella J.'s admonishment — from Figliola — of any «second - in - time» tribunal (the Commissioner of SHRC) considering whether they are comfortable with the «process and merits» of previous decisions (in this case, the UCAB decision)-- they should not be complicit in any attempt to collaterally appeal the merits of the UCAB decision.

For further comment on the efficacy, purpose and reason for retaining, in some form, the preliminary inquiry, see my previous post on the issue as part of a case commentary written in April of 2015, «Does the Stinert Decision Signal the End of the Preliminary Inquiry?».

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. 73In 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. 73in 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. 73in third countries need not be «identical» to those in the EU, they must be «equivalent» (para. 73in the EU, they must be «equivalent» (para. 73).

The court's decision to take on the legally dubious King v. Burwell case, she writes, positions the court on «the front lines of a partisan war,» and puts «not only the Affordable Care Act, but the court itself» in peril.Greenhouse contrasts this case with the previous challenge the court took up to Obamacare, pointing out that this time what's in question isn't the constitutionality of the law, but its statutory interpretation — what did Congress intend and did the government interpret and implement the statute correctly.

Indeed, while district courts invalidated more than double the number of patents under § 101 in the second half of 2014 than in the entire previous year, those decisions represent a very small number of cases relative to the volume of litigation in the system.

Bowman says the decision reaffirms several aspects of the GAAR as examined in previous cases — the methodology in Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada and the interpretation of «in contemplation of.»

(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.

This case considered whether, and in what circumstances, the Supreme Court may set aside a previous decision of the House of Lords.

Its specs aren't all on par with most modern phones due in part to HTC's decision to go with a previous - generation Snapdragon 600 processor, but performance is still quite smooth in most cases.

The Guidelines are long and complex, and they are also interpreted by precedent, or previous court decisions that may impact your own case in one way or another.