Sentences with phrase «reversed by a higher court»

You might find a local yokel judge to approve an injunction against printing a major expose of government misconduct, but that injunction is going to be reversed by a higher court in about eight minutes.

Not exact matches

A number of analysts believed that Gawker stood a good chance of having the Hogan judgment either reversed or significantly reduced, especially since two higher - court judges had already ruled in previous decisions that the publication of an excerpt of Hulk Hogan's sex tape was newsworthy, and therefore covered by the protection of the First Amendment.

Democrats will ask the state's highest court to reverse two lower - court rulings and order a lengthy hand recount of some 85,000 paper ballots that were fed into new optical scanning voting machines in the contest between incumbent Nassau Sen. Craig Johnson, a Democrat, and Mineola Mayor Jack Martins, the GOP challenger, who has been officially certified as having won by 451 votes.

In a case of great interest to districts statewide, the Glendale Unified High District had asked the justices to reverse a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit holding that Arizona's...

AND the appeals court making the claim that the defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that he / she was damaged then «changing» that level of proof to what appears to be a higher standard by saying, «On review, we will not reverse the judgment unless the evidence as a whole unerringly and unmistakably leads to a conclusion opposite that reached by the post-conviction court.»

To explain this, we can reverse the analogy of statutes such as the UK's European Communities Act 1972 acting as a «bridge» to activate the direct effect of EU law in the national order (as most recently reiterated by the High Court's decision in (R) Miller at paragraphs 37 - 54).

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by a majority of three to two, reversing the High Court and Court of Appeal decisions which had set aside arbitral orders in the appellant's favour.

The High Court reversed the JPO resulting in the first - ever product configuration trademark recognized by the cCourt reversed the JPO resulting in the first - ever product configuration trademark recognized by the courtcourt.

Coke - Wallis v Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales -[2011] UKSC 1 - The outcome of the Supreme Court's first judgment of 2011 is that the appellant (represented by Joseph Curl of 9 Stone Buildings) has succeeded in reversing the decisions of the Court of Appeal and the High Court.

The High Court decision follows hard on the heals of the House of Lords» decision [2008] UKHL 6; [2008] 2 WLR 311, [2008] 2 All ER 1, of 30 January 2008, where the law lords effectively changed the law, (reversing a previous House of Lords» ruling in Stubbings v Webb [1993] AC 498, 1993] 1 All ER 322, which held that claims arising from intentional assaults were governed by s 2 of LA 1980), and held that an intentional assault fell within LA 1980, s 11, and was therefore subject to a three - year limitation period, which could be extended by reference to knowledge (s 14), or at the court's discretion (s 33), rather than under LA 1980, s 2, which while providing for a more generous six - year limitation period, was nevertheless not extendable in any circumstances by the cCourt decision follows hard on the heals of the House of Lords» decision [2008] UKHL 6; [2008] 2 WLR 311, [2008] 2 All ER 1, of 30 January 2008, where the law lords effectively changed the law, (reversing a previous House of Lords» ruling in Stubbings v Webb [1993] AC 498, 1993] 1 All ER 322, which held that claims arising from intentional assaults were governed by s 2 of LA 1980), and held that an intentional assault fell within LA 1980, s 11, and was therefore subject to a three - year limitation period, which could be extended by reference to knowledge (s 14), or at the court's discretion (s 33), rather than under LA 1980, s 2, which while providing for a more generous six - year limitation period, was nevertheless not extendable in any circumstances by the ccourt's discretion (s 33), rather than under LA 1980, s 2, which while providing for a more generous six - year limitation period, was nevertheless not extendable in any circumstances by the courtcourt.

«We hold that the circuit court had the duty and authority, in the first instance, to determine the validity of the ordinance, and, until the decision of the circuit court is reversed for error by orderly review, either by the circuit court or a higher court, the orders of the circuit court based on its decision are to be respected, and disobedience of them is contempt of its lawful authority, to be punished.

Courts sometimes make mistakes, so spouses can appeal the court's decisions by asking a higher court to reverse the trial court.