Sentences with phrase «reasoning used in court»

These serve as the foundation for understanding more complex topics, such as the elements of argument and the chain of legal reasoning used in court cases and historical documents.Advanced Composition and Rhetoric Honors also includes honors enrichment activities.

Not exact matches

Many who hated Scalia's rulings could not help but be entertained by his razor - sharp writing, which he used especially in his dissenting opinions to carve up the majority's reasoning (my favorite is Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where among other things he referred to the majority's «Nietzschean vision of us unelected, life - tenured judges — leading a Volk who will be «tested by following»» the Court's rulings obediently).

The reasons for accepting it do not form the kind of deductive proof we require in logic or pure mathematics, but they resemble the arguments used in a court of law to establish innocence or culpability.

In the opinion of many constitutional experts, a majority of five Justices of the Supreme Court used the case as a vehicle to reason the Free Exercise Clause out of the Constitution.

Indeed, in some ways, Sehat's minimalist state is already here: Courts at the state and federal levels have used expansive government «interests» as reasons to trump protected religious exercise.

It will clear up our courts and our jails, it will allow police to focus on real crime, it will allow it to be used for medicinal reasons, it will reduce crime, it will stop money from being wasted on the drug war, and it will bring in more tax revenue.

The fact that defendant has not only dressed his product in imitation of that of the plaintiff, but has, in addition, likewise used plaintiff's trade - mark, gives added reason why the Court should require that hereafter defendant not only discontinue the use of the name «Tabasco,» but that he adopt a new and distinctive bottle and carton, such as will clearly and unmistakably differentiate his sauce from the «Tabasco Pepper Sauce» manufactured by plaintiff.

In more recent centuries it was held that there were other reasons as well, mainly that it placed limits on the use of coercion and police abuse, and forced courts to look at evidence more than possibly unreliable confessions.

Senator Krueger says there are legitimate reasons to use political donors» money to pay legal fees, for instance, if an opponent is challenging your nominating petitions in court.

Prof. Dankofa, among other things, in suit KDH / KAD / 236 / 2018 is praying the court to «declare that the action of the respondents (Kaduna State Government and Kaduna Geographic Information Service, KADGIS) in arrogating to themselves the power to punitively sanction the Applicants (Hunkuyi and his Company, Muna Investment Ltd) property, even if the Applicants were purportedly in default of payment of either ground rent or land use charge or for any other reason constitute a gross violation of Applicant Fundamental Human Right guaranteed under section 43 (1) and 46 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and therefore illegal, unconstitutional, null and void.»

A U.S. appeals court today upheld the legality of federally funded research on human embryonic stem cells (hESCs)-- the latest in a string of wins for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in a 3 - year legal battle with groups that for moral reasons want to block the use of these cells.

Alice's rebellious past, which has been filled with half - truths and minor infractions, is not only used against her in court, but provides her friends and family reason to question her alleged innocence at a time when she desperately needs their support.

In two watershed cases, preserving local control was used by the United States Supreme Court as a reason to leave inequities untouched...

Like the Supreme Court in Zelman, the Ohio and Wisconsin courts reasoned that voucher programs do not provide money for the benefit of religious schools but rather for the benefit of students and their parents, who may independently choose to use the voucher at a religious school.

This paper examines the nature of and reasons for courts» increasing separation of powers concerns and then briefly explores what lessons adequacy plaintiffs might take away for use in future litigation.

Part of the reason for this shift is a recent U.S. Supreme Court opinion that suggested it may not be constitutionally sound for schools and districts to integrate solely based on students» race or ethnicity.15 Responding to this opinion, most school integration policies have shifted away from using race as a determining factor in student assignment.

The Colorado Supreme Court even used similar reasoning to uphold scholarships to private religious colleges in Americans United v. State Fund Inc..

The reason the court gave for calling ebooks a separate product than a book (and therefore subjected to a different tax rate) is that a separate device must be used and presumably purchased in order to read the ebook.

Well, in 2014, a court ruling held that customer Susan Plevin was treated unfairly because she wasn't told about the large amount of commission (71.8 %) taken from her PPI payment - and from now, this can be used as a new reason to claim for compensation.

If any provision of these Terms of Use is held by a court or other tribunal of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable for any reason, such provision shall be eliminated or limited to the minimum extent such that the remaining provisions of the Terms of Use will continue in full force and effect.

If, for whatever reason, a court of competent jurisdiction finds any term or condition in these Terms of Use to be unenforceable, all other terms and conditions will remain unaffected an in full force and effect.

If any provision of these Terms of Use is held by a court or other tribunal of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable for any reason, such provision shall be eliminated or limited to the minimum extent such that the remaining provisions of the Terms of Use will continue in full force and effect.

In a climate case, more so than any other policy - related case, courts need to inform themselves of the range of scientific opinions, the specific points of agreement and disagreements, the assumptions made by scientists, their theories and reasoning, the validity and accuracy of the models used, the unknowns, uncertainties, and gradations, etc..

In actual courts of law, the reason the courts keep clarifying their own use of the fallacy is because of advocacy for and against the fallacy.

Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for the Reason Foundation — also named in Walker's subpoena — said, according to the Washington Times: «These subpoenas are a huge step in using courts to silence people who hold views that differ from those of powerful government officials.»

Under the Masterpiece reasoning, there is no room for disclaimers or website content to correct initial mistake or confusion resulting from the initial trademark or domain name use, as the Court of Appeal in this decision appears to have allowed.

Each winner agrees (for himself or herself and his or her heirs) that, by accepting the prize, we, along with our affiliates and agents, will have no liability, and will be held harmless by the winners for any liability, loss, injury or damage to property or person, including death, and reasonable attorney's fees and court costs, due in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, by reason of the acceptance, possession, use or misuse of the prize or participation in the Giveaway, even if caused or contributed to by our negligence.

The point is not to argue that the Court's reasoning and conclusions are incorrect, but to shed light on the ways in which arbitral tribunals have actually «used» EU law, and to show that the Court's understanding (with which most commentators sympathize) that investment arbitration poses a threat to the autonomy of EU law is somewhat inflated.

Those conditions had been specifically laid down in Tele2 Sverige and consist of subjecting the use of data to a prior review — except for cases of urgency — by a court or an independent administrative body, to which the competent authority submit a «reasoned request» (para 202).

In an illustration of a seldom used power, reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, ordering a Plaintiff's lawyer to pay costs to Defendants personally pursuant to Rule 14 - 1 (33) after bringing an unsuccessful application to renew a lawsuit.

Is there a valid reason to require a certified court reporter to record a deposition that will be used in court, or is a video deposition sufficient?

In making such a finding, the court would have to issue a written order about the deviation and explain the reasons that the percentage - based child support guidelines were not used.

At the same time, Rose says there is plenty that we don't know, such as whether or not it is safer for employers to use fewer words in a termination clause and avoid all - inclusive language, and whether, for public policy reasons, future court decisions will put an onus on employers to make clear to employees the differences between ESA entitlements and the common law before they sign ESA - only contracts.

It is, in fact, impossible to find the reasons for judgment of the Court of Appeal, using this style of cause, on either the Court's own website (even when you know the date of the decision) or through CanLII — or, for that matter QL or WestLaw.

BC Injury Law And ICBC Claims Blog Subjective Soft Tissue Injuries And Judicial Scrutiny Last year I criticized the often recited judicial passage stating that «``... the Court should be exceedingly careful when there is little or no objective evidence of continuing injury and when complaints of pain persist for long periods extending beyond the normal or usual recovery...» and pointing out that these comments should no longer be used given Supreme Court of Canada's reasons in FH v. McDougall.

... the time has come to recognize the stark reality that our court, for whatever reason, lags unacceptably behind in the use of electronic communications with our court users.

As the recent story in The Guardian relates, barring Bayes has led to a strong reaction from the scientific and mathematics communities and the formation of a group of more than 60 members aimed at explicating and defending the use of probabilistic reasoning in the criminal courts.

It rightly emphasises the importance of, and engages in detail in, statutory interpretation, and marks a more discursive form of constitutional reasoning than the Court has previously used in this field.

And what peeves me in particular is that in this digital day and age, there's no reason for lawyers to have to worry about contacting court reporters, ordering transcripts or getting them prepared: Trials should be taped and automatically transcribed either through use of natural speaking software or by offshoring transcription overseas.

It was the second time in seven years that Ritchie received a serious rebuke on appeal, since in 2004, another superior court judge overturned his conviction in such a case because of the judge's use of «boilerplate» reasons.

That's the reason legal seminars focused on understanding and using social media evidence in court have become so prevalent: lawyers want to learn all they can about this important topic.

While s. 17 of the Act preserves the applicability of the local rules of court except where inconsistent, it is circular reasoning, as the court in Cegir noted, to use that section to interpret s. 9 — as the court did in Ritter.

The criticisms raised in relation to the decision of the Court do not necessarily pertain to the result reached by the Court; rather, the issues touched by these short considerations pertain to the reasoning and the arguments used by the CJEU.

While deciding HRC Shipping case, the learned court had drawn upon the reasoning used in the landmark Indian case, Bhatia International v Bulk Trading SA [3], where the Court held that the Act itself did not state that it would not apply if the place of arbitration is not in Bangladesh or that it would apply only if the place of arbitration is in Banglacourt had drawn upon the reasoning used in the landmark Indian case, Bhatia International v Bulk Trading SA [3], where the Court held that the Act itself did not state that it would not apply if the place of arbitration is not in Bangladesh or that it would apply only if the place of arbitration is in BanglaCourt held that the Act itself did not state that it would not apply if the place of arbitration is not in Bangladesh or that it would apply only if the place of arbitration is in Bangladesh.

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.

If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is usually bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (a principle known as stare decisis).

The third use of «By the Court» is the proactive set: the Court decides on its own initiative and for its own reasons that an issue arising in a «normal» appeal (that is to say, not a reference case) deserves this unusual decision format.

Similarly, the Dickson biography declares that although two specific decisions were reported as «By the Court» judgments, Dickson's own papers put it beyond doubt that Dickson himself wrote the reasons in question — but, again, there is no discussion of why the impersonal label was used at all, no indication of why Dickson did not assume individual responsibility in the usual way, no hint of a broader practice or policy.

After a detailed interview of the client and careful scrutiny of the statement of the complainant and other evidence, the defence found that within several days of the charges the complainant filed in Family Court for sole custody and used the allegations as a reason for sole custody.

Hopefully, any of the balanced scholarly looks will (a) acknowledge that these lethal injection cases in federal courts should be dealt with swiftly, as the Supreme Court has said that when stays in capital cases are issued, the issues need to be resolved expeditiously, (b) acknowledge that some of the legal reasoning in some of the cases lacks, e.g., Fogel's constitutionalization of the wattage of a light bulb or Frost's use of cases where a party has engaged in sharp dealings to analyze Ohio's «fault» in filing an interlocutory appeal and (c) examine whether the burden of proof has been subtly shifted from the prisoner to the state in these cases.