Sentences with phrase «required at common law»

Although it had no express statutory right to such an opportunity, it contended that such an opportunity was required at common law or by Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1, Protocol 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

If your organization decides to offer a lower amount than that required at common law, consider the costs of litigation and how, if the organization later shifts its position, this may be perceived by a court;

Not exact matches

Such risks, uncertainties and other factors include, without limitation: (1) the effect of economic conditions in the industries and markets in which United Technologies and Rockwell Collins operate in the U.S. and globally and any changes therein, including financial market conditions, fluctuations in commodity prices, interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates, levels of end market demand in construction and in both the commercial and defense segments of the aerospace industry, levels of air travel, financial condition of commercial airlines, the impact of weather conditions and natural disasters and the financial condition of our customers and suppliers; (2) challenges in the development, production, delivery, support, performance and realization of the anticipated benefits of advanced technologies and new products and services; (3) the scope, nature, impact or timing of acquisition and divestiture or restructuring activity, including the pending acquisition of Rockwell Collins, including among other things integration of acquired businesses into United Technologies» existing businesses and realization of synergies and opportunities for growth and innovation; (4) future timing and levels of indebtedness, including indebtedness expected to be incurred by United Technologies in connection with the pending Rockwell Collins acquisition, and capital spending and research and development spending, including in connection with the pending Rockwell Collins acquisition; (5) future availability of credit and factors that may affect such availability, including credit market conditions and our capital structure; (6) the timing and scope of future repurchases of United Technologies» common stock, which may be suspended at any time due to various factors, including market conditions and the level of other investing activities and uses of cash, including in connection with the proposed acquisition of Rockwell; (7) delays and disruption in delivery of materials and services from suppliers; (8) company and customer - directed cost reduction efforts and restructuring costs and savings and other consequences thereof; (9) new business and investment opportunities; (10) our ability to realize the intended benefits of organizational changes; (11) the anticipated benefits of diversification and balance of operations across product lines, regions and industries; (12) the outcome of legal proceedings, investigations and other contingencies; (13) pension plan assumptions and future contributions; (14) the impact of the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements and labor disputes; (15) the effect of changes in political conditions in the U.S. and other countries in which United Technologies and Rockwell Collins operate, including the effect of changes in U.S. trade policies or the U.K.'s pending withdrawal from the EU, on general market conditions, global trade policies and currency exchange rates in the near term and beyond; (16) the effect of changes in tax (including U.S. tax reform enacted on December 22, 2017, which is commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017), environmental, regulatory (including among other things import / export) and other laws and regulations in the U.S. and other countries in which United Technologies and Rockwell Collins operate; (17) the ability of United Technologies and Rockwell Collins to receive the required regulatory approvals (and the risk that such approvals may result in the imposition of conditions that could adversely affect the combined company or the expected benefits of the merger) and to satisfy the other conditions to the closing of the pending acquisition on a timely basis or at all; (18) the occurrence of events that may give rise to a right of one or both of United Technologies or Rockwell Collins to terminate the merger agreement, including in circumstances that might require Rockwell Collins to pay a termination fee of $ 695 million to United Technologies or $ 50 million of expense reimbursement; (19) negative effects of the announcement or the completion of the merger on the market price of United Technologies» and / or Rockwell Collins» common stock and / or on their respective financial performance; (20) risks related to Rockwell Collins and United Technologies being restricted in their operation of their businesses while the merger agreement is in effect; (21) risks relating to the value of the United Technologies» shares to be issued in connection with the pending Rockwell acquisition, significant merger costs and / or unknown liabilities; (22) risks associated with third party contracts containing consent and / or other provisions that may be triggered by the Rockwell merger agreement; (23) risks associated with merger - related litigation or appraisal proceedings; and (24) the ability of United Technologies and Rockwell Collins, or the combined company, to retain and hire key personnel.

A special legislative committee of the Buffalo Common Council will hold a public hearing at 5:30 p.m. Tuesday on a proposed law requiring that new apartment developments set aside a certain percentage of their units as affordable.

NU Pushes to End Law Requiring Four Public Finalists for Top Jobs Omaha World - Herald, 1/31/16 «Judith Block McLaughlin, a senior lecturer at the Harvard Graduate School of Education who researches college presidents, said it's becoming more common to name a single finalist at public universities because a president job hunting can almost be viewed as «infidelity.»»

Typically by corporate law, dividends must be paid to preferred shares, to the extent required based on the characteristics of the share class [some preferred shares may not have any required dividends at all], before any dividends can be paid to common shares.

This would be a common scenario (federal law requires investors to have at least 50 % of their margin equity when opening a transaction).

Many common stocks issued today do not have par values; those that do (usually only in jurisdictions where par values are required by law) have extremely low par values (often the smallest unit of currency in circulation), for example a penny (USD$ 0.01) par value on a stock issued at USD$ 25.00 / share.

Back in 2010, Maryland passed a law requiring motorists to give cyclists at least 3 feet of room while passing (which should be common sense...).

The same could be true of the next generation of lawyers and their current legal research professors.2 We have likely reached a point at which our frames of reference diverge sufficiently that we don't share a common reference point for approaching the structure of legal research.3 Arguably, the tech - saturated millennials need a solid research foundation more than any generation before them.4 Yet many of them regard our legal research instruction as cumbersome or outdated.5 Having grown up using intuitive electronic devices, and using them to good advantage, 6 many modern law students resist legal research methods that require rigidity, formality, or — worst of all — a trip to a print library.7 Indeed, many of them are downright «mistrustful both of physical libraries and of those who extol their virtues.»

Justice Cromwell had analogised the standard to establish Aboriginal title to the requirements for general occupancy at common law, requiring an actual entry and actions from which an intent to occupy land could be inferred.

Of course it is probably simpler for everybody if our domestic law and our law applicable to international contracts were the same, so it is a fair question to ask if we should adapt our rules --- to the very small extent required, at least in common law jurisdictions --- to harmonize them with the Convention.

At my law school, in addition to the common first year subjects — torts, property, contracts, criminal law, legal systems and judicial process and legal writing — we were required to take administrative law, evidence, civil procedure, insurance, constitutional law (division of powers, that is — the Charter was not yet... [more]

For those who haven't been following it, Vancouver - based equity partner John Michael McCormick sued Faskens under B.C. human rights law because the partnership agreement required him to retire at 65, which is common among law firms.

In the FCA's view, the remedies available to adjudicators to reinstate employees and / or to order employers «to do any other like thing that it is equitable to require the employer to do in order to remedy or counteract any consequence of the dismissal» are over and above the old remedies available at common law, but do not support the theory that dismissals can only be with cause.

The Court's own reasoning appears at paragraph 392 where it is said that the rationale of immunity remains the par in parem principle and that «the common law rule as to waiver is consonant with elementary good sense by requiring an unequivocal submission to the jurisdiction of the forum state at the time when the forum's state's jurisdiction is invoked against the impleaded state.

Paid breaks are not required by the ESA, and are likely not a fundamental term of employment in themselves, and so removing them «unilaterally and without reasonable notice or fresh consideration, is not unlawful under the ESA, nor does it amount to constructive dismissal under the common law,» Rose says, noting that under the ESA, an employer must still provide an unpaid period of at least 30 minutes at intervals so that the employee doesn't work more than five consecutive hours without an eating period.

«[D] ue process of law is violated by «a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.»

Although he accepted that there is no general duty to give reasons at common law (at para 51), Lord Carnwath took the view, following R v Home Secretary, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531, that reasons will be required where they are necessary to permit the courts to scrutinise the underlying decision effectively:

At my law school, in addition to the common first year subjects — torts, property, contracts, criminal law, legal systems and judicial process and legal writing — we were required to take administrative law, evidence, civil procedure, insurance, constitutional law (division of powers, that is — the Charter was not yet a gleam in anyone's eye), jurisprudence, company law, sale of goods, secured transactions, trusts and family law.

3 I wonder on what physical substrate would such a fee rest (if the fee simple requires that - I'm asking); and does one distinguish between fruits / crops and fish (a living being traveling in the river, not constrained to a fraction of it, and not growing out of it) in the profits - a-prendre context at common law?

Upholding that decision, Silber J noted that the legislation required use of the civil standard but held that the position would have been the same at common law in the light of Re B and D.

Under the general principles of common law, if you hire an appraiser, and there is no contractual or statutory waiver of a right to sue, you would have to show that (1) there is the standard of professional conduct applicable to the appraisal profession in preparing the appraisal that requires the use of the best available comparables (probably with an expert witness certified as an appraiser), (2) the appraiser in this case engaged in conduct that breached the standard of professional conduct applicable to appraisers, (3) this breach caused you harm that was reasonable foreseeable at the time the appraisal was prepared, and (4) that you suffered quantifiable damages that were foreseeably caused by this breach of duty.

It is common for the law to require that a life insurance trust to be set up at least three years in advance of a grantor's death in order for the death benefit to be exempt from the estate tax.

The judge concluded that as a matter of law Yorta Yorta requires only that the applicants show a «common normative system» at sovereignty.

If they do not attend any of the organized information sessions, they will be required to complete the regularly scheduled Common Law Agency course by February 12th, 2017, at full cost.