Sentences with phrase «reasoning applies to this case»

However, he did not believe that this reasoning applies to this case, ie action taken by ministers by way of preparation for the introduction of a different statutory regime.

Not exact matches

It is for good reasons that we set up systems of laws or, in the corporate case, systems of policies, and empower and entrust qualified administrators to apply those laws and policies.

The one and only reason it dragged out was due to the hawks foolishly blocking further needed public stimulus (public stimulus, which has been absolutely proven to work when applied during a deflationary recession and when private debt is too high already, which was the case when the little and only stimulus was applied).

This clearly doesn't apply in the case of the TransMountain pipeline, but Alberta's Bill 12 might give the federal government a reason to use it.

As my PaidContent colleague Jeff John Roberts reported last month, Harris» attempt to have this court order struck down failed for a somewhat unusual reason: namely, the judge hearing the case decided that Harris did not have any legal interest in the tweets he sent, because such rights only apply to things a user actually owns — and users do not own their tweets for the purposes of the U.S. Constitution.

However, the reason you still are a Christian knowing those principles is because you have never applied the process that have proven those scientific principles to your beliefs or you live with a severe case of cognitive dissidence.

For that reason the Church teaches moral maxims with specific content to be observed by the faithful in every case where the inner structure of reality to which these principles apply is actually present and where this presence is recognized by the Christian.

Hidden allusions are never easy to be sure of and particularly is this the case with an ancient text, but one can at least see the reasons why Martin - Achard comes to the conclusion that these verses from the book of Hosea not only apply the idiom of resurrection to Israel's hope for the future, but also show where it came from.

That you accept some other reason why they ought not be isn't a very good answer to why this argument that they shouldn't be can or can not be applied to other cases.

This is the principle on which domestic animal cruelty cases are based and there is no reason why it should not apply to wild animals, given the different circumstances that wild animals live in compared to that of domestic animals.

But in other cases, the evolutionary handicap principle applies, and the fact it's hard to stay alive while possessing a huge or brightly coloured attraction becomes the reason for the visual pizzazz.

Like all modern foods, most cod liver oil today is subject to processing; in the case of cod liver oil, this processing generally applies heat from steaming, boiling or distillation.1 These treatments could damage the omega - 3 fatty acids in cod liver oil and remove natural vitamins, especially vitamin D. For that reason, the Weston A. Price Foundation has tended to recommend brands of cod liver oil that are extracted at low temperatures, especially through a process of fermenting the livers.

The reason for this is, they have worked with local established research institutes (in this case, Oxford University) to modify their dating site and matching algorithm to make it apply more specifically to relationships in the United Kingdom.

The U.S. Supreme Court later applied similar reasoning in the 2011 case ACSTO v. Winn, rejecting the standing of petitioners to challenge Arizona's scholarship tax - credit law because the funds did not become public money since they had not «come into the tax collector's hands.»

The combination also makes sense for another reason, according to Michael Shayer, a professor of applied psychology at the University of London and the co-developer of the CASE program — the abilities don't overlap.

I suppose it's true that some sort of change is in order, since you have failed to convince the financial blog community, but as is often the case with you, I'm not at all convinced that you are applying sound reasoning in assuming that the frothy mix of politics is the right place to take your war on passive index investing; which is about the most benign thing a person could do, and one that I am not sure can be outlawed without significant impact on our basic personal freedoms!

Your IRA custodian or plan administrator (the payor) will generally indicate that one of these exceptions applies to your distribution in Box 7 of your 1099 - R, but may not do so in all cases for reasons that include the following:

Until courts apply this reasoning to Chapter 7 cases, however, it is critical to pay attention to the date you file your Chapter 7 case.

As a considerable amount of consular time is being taken up in handling cases of lost, stolen, damaged or invalid passports, the FCO have created six Vines which highlight some of the reasons that have led to people applying for an emergency travel document abroad.

Now once this ratio (whatever it might be) has been established, I see no reason why more or less the same ratio can not be applied to all cases of fossil fuel burning prior to that period, especially since there were no controls over the emission of such aerosols during either period.

In this case, however, I see good reasons to believe that the case for a «carbon asset bubble» has been overstated and applied too broadly.

If we apply current reasoning to the tobacco case why weren't the tobacco farmers held responsible?

Obviously, your reasoning does not apply to this case.

The leading case applying the selective - waiver analysis is Diversified Industries Inc v. Meredith.87 In Diversified Industries, a corporation retained outside counsel to conduct an internal investigation into allegations of bribery.88 The internal report prepared by outside counsel was then produced to the SEC. 89 The Eighth Circuit held that this disclosure constituted only a «limited waiver» that did not preclude the corporation from subsequently withholding the report from private litigants on the grounds of attorney — client privilege.90 The court reasoned that a contrary ruling may undermine corporate incentives to initiate internal investigations conducted by counsel.91

In PAP and non-PAP cases: notice of the existence of a funding arrangement should be communicated to all other parties as soon as possible; if proceedings are started for limitation reasons with bad pre-action manners, the parties should seek to agree to apply to the court for a stay while they take steps to comply; and where proceedings are started, the claimant should state in the claim form or particulars of claim whether they have complied with the PD and any relevant PAP.

A judge is entitled to apply the principle of sharing at the outset of the case and look for reasons to depart from it, rather than as a cross-check at the end of its balancing exercise: «a judge might well first consider distribution by reference to the sharing principle and then shortly refer to the other principles» (para 76).

Or one argues that the application was in fact made to seek a long - term stay for humanitarian reasons, in case which the application falls outside the scope of the Visa Code and the Charter does not apply.

There may be many reasons for this: computer - based technology or similar tools require a certain degree of literacy, they require a certain degree of technical knowledge (even though we may think this is pretty minimal), they require access to the technology in an environment that the individual feels reasonably comfortable raising his or her problem (we think that having available terminals in libraries and other public places may be sufficient, but this may not be the case), they require a basic knowledge that allows the recipient of information to interpret and apply it.

«So if we apply the reasoning the Justice Department advances in the Kuehne case,» Horton writes, «Yoo and Bradbury are engaged in a criminal conspiracy to subvert the law and may be chargeable in connection with the underlying crimes.»

As recent cases such as Watkinson (ET 1702168 / 2008 and 1702079 / 2009) have demonstrated, there is ample incentive for unfair dismissal claimants to allege that the reason for dismissal was, for example, the fact that protected disclosures had been made, because the statutory cap on compensation does not apply in such cases.

Putting aside that no case has ever claimed that contribution applies only to but - for causes — good thing because there's many a defendant held liable who received contribution where the conduct wasn't a but - for cause and there's no reason to read any of the apportionment statutes that way — I suppose the conclusion that contribution is limited to but - for causation does follow if the Court believes that the only way there can ever be factual causation is under the but - for test.

While the outcome of this appeal decision is definitely pro-insured, the lasting impact of this decision will depend on whether the court's reasoning is restricted to the unique facts of this case or applied more broadly to resulting damage claims generally.

50 that the reasons which led it to interpret Article 22 (4) widely in GAT, do not require that, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, Article 31 should not be applied.

The legal distinction between reality and virtual reality applied to court cases is very much open to debate, however, assuming that the environment is as accurate and detailed as possible, the evidence has been integrated correctly and the technology is used in an appropriate way, there is no reason that the virtual can not be accepted as the real; in the same way that security and disability audits can be conducted for the construction industry using 3D models and virtual reality.

This reasoning ignores the fact that these Strasbourg cases have also been applied in other jurisdictions, such as the United States, [27] and the UN Human Rights Committee's landmark 1994 decision on a «right to privacy» within the comparative Article 17 of the of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, in Toonen v Australia.

Although Judge Easterbrook was referring to the flawed reasoning of the lower court, the same principles apply to attack adverse cases.

In that case the proceedings were a different claim to that which a without prejudice letter had been written in relation to, but privilege continued to apply by reason of public policy.

Although limited to the statutory scheme found in Alberta, the Pridgen case stands for the proposition that university administrators should ensure that Baker procedural fairness is applied by providing full reasons to explain the rationale for decisions, especially where penal sanctions are invoked.

§ 3.2 The combined body of conflicts case law on both sides of the border supports the proposition that judges look for reasons to apply home forum law whenever they can.

To my mind, there is no reason to apply this rule to all cases without exception, but courts seem to apply it pretty much across the boarTo my mind, there is no reason to apply this rule to all cases without exception, but courts seem to apply it pretty much across the boarto apply this rule to all cases without exception, but courts seem to apply it pretty much across the boarto all cases without exception, but courts seem to apply it pretty much across the boarto apply it pretty much across the board.

She went on to explain that the dangers of hearsay could be overcome in individual cases by pointing to circumstances surrounding the making of the statement that support its reliability, by determining that its reliability could be sufficiently tested despite its hearsay character, or by applying some combination of these kinds of reasons.

[1] In affirming its preference to apply forum law to tort cases unless a «rational reason» existed to displace it, the Michigan Supreme Court relied heavily on Borchers» analysis in concluding that: «only two distinct conflict of law theories actually exist.

If the civil standard applied in relation to civil fraud so far as VAT is concerned, then there was no reason in principle why it should not apply to such matters in relation to income tax, and negligence was then an a fortiori case.

(b) whether the insurer has determined that the insured person has an impairment to which a Pre-approved Framework Guideline applies and the reasons for the insurer's decision, in the case where the insurer gave a notice referred to in paragraph 2 of subsection (8).

In her reasons, the motions judge had raised the concern that if section 18 were to apply in this case, it would have presented a practical barrier to Roscoe and Canaccord presenting a common front in the underlying lawsuit.

However, in this case, the judge did not apply the principles in relation to «add back» but chose instead to rule that the husband's conduct was an additional reason to depart from equality which, together with the wife's needs left the wife with an additional share of the matrimonial assets.

One may already stop here to wonder whether the EFTA Court is not making its life too easy speaking of an interpretation of EEA law «in the light» of fundamental rights in the present case; a more thorough reasoning would have had to grapple with the scope of EEA law in the case: Only if Iceland was acting effectively within the scope of EEA law here the fundamental rights standards of EEA law apply under the EFTA Court's supervision; otherwise one could argue that the Supreme Court of Iceland's action ought to be judged against the benchmark of domestic fundamental rights and ECHR standards (compare the rich debate on the parallel problem in EU law which focuses on Article 51 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights).

While the cases have typically arisen in the context of bar room brawls or hockey violence, other courts have applied the same reasoning to the sexual context.

The source of contention in all of these cases is that a number of third countries and seal hunters are not too happy with the EU's decision to damage their economic interests for reasons of protecting the health and life of animals not situated within the territory of the EU (granted, Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, but most EU law does not apply there, see article 198 - 204, 355 TFEU and Annex II of the Lisbon Treaty).

That jurisdiction is founded on statutory provision which requires the law of the DIFC to be first applied and only in absentia to move on to the cascading subparagraphs» provisions, of which the last is the law of England and Wales, which for reasons which are apparent, in the light of the decisions of the English Courts set out above (Burton J and Briggs LJ) on the absence of immunity of the KRG in the present case, does not assist the KRG.