Sentences with phrase «raising issues on appeal»

Along with his own opinions, the book showcases the opinions of numerous federal and state judges about raising issues on appeal.

In addition, a party could decide not to object to something, hoping for a favorable outcome and planning to raise the issue on appeal in the event of an unfavorable outcome.

Not exact matches

UK lawyer Peter Benson began the movement in May 1961 by issuing an «appeal for amnesty» on behalf of two Portuguese students who had been imprisoned for raising their glasses in a «toast to freedom».

In Justice Mohammed's judgment, which was read on his behalf by Justice Ejembi Eko, the apex court resolved all the three issues raised in the appeals against the appellants.

OSSINING, NY — As part of efforts to craft legislation raising the age of criminal responsibility from 16 to 18, Senators David Carlucci (D - Rockland / Westchester) and Jeff Klein (D - Bronx / Westchester) held a roundtable discussion keynoted by the Honorable Jonathan Lippman, former Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals who has been an outspoken advocate on the issue.

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. — In the mayor's race for almost two weeks, Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis has raised few of the myriad issues that Staten Islanders deal with on a daily basis, but she plans to do so, she said, while trying to appeal to a broader citywide voter pool.

He directed that the appellants should raise the issues in their interlocutory appea ls in when they file substantive appeals which they wish to file against the Court of Appeal's judgment delivered on Thursday.

Teachout represents Cuomo's left flank, and Astorino is trying to appeal to as many conservative and moderate Republicans as possible — and has been making attempts to appeal to all voters on issues like Common Core and corruption — in an effort to raise his statewide profile.

It's fair to assume, however, that Apple will bring up many of the same issues it raised in an August letter to Judge Cote, in which it outlined the arguments it planned to raise on appeal.

Discretionary orders of prothonotaries ought not be disturbed on appeal to a judge unless: a) the questions raised in the motion are vital to the final issue of the case, or b) the orders are clearly wrong, in the sense that the exercise of discretion by the prothonotary was based upon a wrong principle or upon a misapprehension of the facts.

The defendant objected to this instruction, and raised it as an issue on appeal.

An issue was raised with the Arizona Court of Appeals regarding the effect of a merger on modification of alimony in Arizona.

Thus, if an appellate court is presented with an issue that was raised for the first time on appeal, the party making the argument should be prepared to explain why the argument was not presented below.

Unanimously allowing the appeal, nothing in s 103 (2) or (3)(or in the underlying provisions of article V of the New York Convention) provides a power to make an enforcing court's decision on an issue raised under these provisions conditional on an award debtor providing security in respect of the award.

In the U.S., a criminal defendant can not raise the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel on a direct appeal of a conviction or sentence, but can raise it in a collateral attack on a conviction which must be brought first in the state court and if that remedy is exhausted, may then be brought in federal court.

Choosing the issues to raise on appeal can be just as important as how you brief them.

Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust v Armstrong [2006] IRLR 124 (Court of Appeal), and on a second appeal, [2010] ICR 674 (EAT) Instructed throughout this long running equal pay case which, on appeal, raised issues of the selection of comparators and the material factor defence in equal pay cAppeal), and on a second appeal, [2010] ICR 674 (EAT) Instructed throughout this long running equal pay case which, on appeal, raised issues of the selection of comparators and the material factor defence in equal pay cappeal, [2010] ICR 674 (EAT) Instructed throughout this long running equal pay case which, on appeal, raised issues of the selection of comparators and the material factor defence in equal pay cappeal, raised issues of the selection of comparators and the material factor defence in equal pay claims.

(Order, p. 2) As the court notes in its summary of the order, an acquittal can issue either when a jury returns a not - guilty verdict, or «when a trial court grants a defendant's new trial motion for evidentiary insufficiency... or dismisses a case... for evidentiary insufficiency» (Id., pp. 2 — 3) The essence of the court's decision is in two parts: (1) The new trial motion should not have been granted because there was sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Stern on counts of conspiracy; and (2) Because the trial court did not rule on the majority of the issues raised in Stern's motion for a new trial, those issues have yet to be decided, and should be addressed on remand by the court of appeals.

On December 1, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear appeals in two cases that raise the issue: can indirect purchasers sue to recover losses arising from a... [more] Full article

This case (which was argued in the Court of Appeal in October 2014 and is reported at [2015] EWCA 16) raises important issues on the relationship between the safe -LSB-...]

In my view, others are also likely to be grateful because, in agreement with the FtT judge and them, and in disagreement with the Legal Aid Agency decision maker, this appeal is one that raises issues on which it is appropriate for the Upper Tribunal to give guidance.

It is unfortunate that Canada's highest court declined to hear a further appeal and provide national guidance on the important and divisive issues raised by this decision.

She appealed to the Montana Supreme Court raising two issues: 1) Whether the district court abused its discretion when it denied Viola's Rule 59 (e) and 60 (b) motions based on the district court's failure to consider whether the property settlement agreement was unconscionable; and 2) Whether the district court abused its discretion when it determined that the property settlement agreement was valid without a disclosure of assets.

The three different court challenges are proceeding on quite different records and accordingly different issues are raised as the recent decisions of the Courts of Appeal for Ontario and Nova Scotia show.

While it would be helpful to have the Court of Appeal's conclusions on some of the interesting issues that the parties raised, ultimately, the Court of Appeal wisely decided not to do more than necessary and wait until a case came before it with a proper record to decide these matters.

Persuaded trial court to dismiss appeal for lack of standing where appellant challenged the Connecticut Siting Council authorization to build and operate a telecommunications facility in northwest Connecticut; successfully defended that decision and numerous other issues raised on appeal at the Connecticut Appellate Court and the Connecticut Supreme Court.

Citing R v Langlois (DJ), 2008 MBCA 72 (CanLII), 228 ManR (2d) 256; R v Schalla (KT), 2007 MBCA 104 (CanLII), 220 ManR (2d) 69; and R v McCorriston (GJ), 2010 MBCA 3 (CanLII), 251 ManR (2d) 106, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, if leave to appeal is sought on a question of law alone, it must raise an arguable issue of subsAppeal confirmed that, if leave to appeal is sought on a question of law alone, it must raise an arguable issue of subsappeal is sought on a question of law alone, it must raise an arguable issue of substance.

Among the issues that Wal - Mart raised on appeal was whether California's «new right - exclusive remedy» rule bars a punitive damage award in a wage and hour case.

One of the issues raised on appeal had to...

On November 9, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) will hear an appeal in Office of the Children's Lawyer v JPB and CRB (Supreme Court of Canada, Leave to Appeal (37250)-RRB-(Balev), a case which raises important issues about the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child AbductioOn November 9, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) will hear an appeal in Office of the Children's Lawyer v JPB and CRB (Supreme Court of Canada, Leave to Appeal (37250)-RRB-(Balev), a case which raises important issues about the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduappeal in Office of the Children's Lawyer v JPB and CRB (Supreme Court of Canada, Leave to Appeal (37250)-RRB-(Balev), a case which raises important issues about the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child AbduAppeal (37250)-RRB-(Balev), a case which raises important issues about the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abductioon the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

There are two practice points to take note of from this decision: (1) even though it is not in the Rules, the Divisional Court has an «administrative practice» that counsel should be aware of that requires leave to file a reply factum, and (2) when a party is drafting their factum, they need to anticipate what the other side might say in response - unless it is a completely «new» issue raised in response, a moving party on a leave to appeal motion will not be able to respond to the particular arguments made by the other side.

Fifth, the limitation on the availability of appeals of the decisions of the designated authority raises issues regarding procedural fairness (see section 47.5 (5)-RRB-.

Re: Confidential ICC Arbitration (2016): raises issues relating to jurisdiction of tribunal; considers the effect of Court of Appeal decision in Baytur on status of an arbitration commenced by a Claimant that has since ceased to exist where the mechanism of transfer of rights and liabilities is not universal succession.

With respect to trial fairness, the Court of Appeal found the Trial Judge did not raise the issue of whether counsel had cross-examined the complainants on the Appellant's assertion that it was Abdi alone who was involved in the robberies.

There is little case law on the requirements of Rule of Civil Procedure 41.1 as it regards sealing the record, and it appears the Court of Appeals raised this issue on its own at oral argument.

If the issue is raised afterwards, on appeal, the court may take the view that the defendant has waived his right to argue the point.

Indeed, it is my view that judges are supposed to decide appeals based on the merits of the issues being raised, the facts of the case and the applicable law, rather than based on the quality of the briefs and the oral arguments.

The test, as the majority judgment and the dissent agree is that there must be enough evidence in the file to allow the appellate court to rule on the new issue, and the failure to raise it at first instance can not be the result of a strategic choice by the party that seeks to raise it on appeal.

Last week, in R. v. Cloud, 2014 QCCA 1680, a split judgment from which Chief Justice Nicole Duval Hesler dissented, the Court denied leave, saying that the case did not meet the narrow criteria for raising a new (constitutional) issue for the first time on appeal.

Even an independent reference to the issue should not appear in any appellate reasons, although an innocuous comment by the court indicating that the issue of sentence was not raised by either parties on appeal, may be appropriate.

And so the main question for the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal was right to raise this issue on its own.

Amy acted for Erdenet on appeal in this contractual dispute raising fundamental issues as to the application of the «Canada Trust gloss» for service of proceedings out of the jurisdiction.

Generally speaking, a party can not raise on appeal an issue that he or she failed to raise at fist instance.

On appeal, the Appellant raises the following issues:

While trial attorneys know they must preserve issues they wish to raise on appeal, they often overlook the basic steps required to help ensure appellate review.

Criminal Law: New Issues on Appeal R. v. Mian, 2014 SCC 54 (35132) Appellate courts have discretion to raise a new issue, but only in rare circumstances, and only when failing to do so would risk an injustice.

[8] The issue raised on this appeal has to do with the duty of the Board to include directions as to the interim custody, and available interim privileges, in a disposition that involves the transfer of a detainee from one hospital to another.

[1] The primary question on this appeal centres on the issue of an appellate court's ability to raise new grounds of appeal and the considerations which should guide the court in doing so.

For the moment, I want to focus on another issue that is raised by the recent appeal in Mr. Groia's case: the tensions that result from having both the courts and law societies play a role in regulating lawyers in Canada.

Although the issue of doli incapax was not raised by the defence, on appeal Lady Justice Smith felt it appropriate to investigate the effect of s 34 because: