Sentences with phrase «right claiming decision»

The amount of additional expected lifetime benefits gained with the right claiming decision can be significant: up to $ 100,000 more for individuals and $ 250,000 for married couples.»

Not exact matches

«Because of our emphasis on the long - term, we may make decisions and weigh tradeoffs differently than some companies... We will continue to make investment decisions in light of long - term market leadership considerations rather than short - term profitability considerations or short - term Wall Street reactions... We aren't so bold as to claim that the above is the «right» investment philosophy, but it's ours, and we would be remiss if we weren't clear in the approach we have taken and will continue to take.»

While the claim that John Horgan and the NDP have made does appear to resonate with a substantial number of Canadians, in action, they're less inclined to think that the decision to delay the project was the right one.

But as with past Supreme Court ATS decisions, the justices once again failed to shut the door entirely on human rights activists: the ruling said nothing about the many ATS claims pending against American corporations.

The institutional shareholders claimed investors have the right to receive all information «necessary to make informed decisions» for voting at the annual meeting next year.

This time, Pomerantz established the right of individual foreign investors who purchased foreign - traded shares of a foreign corporation to pursue claims for securities fraud in a U.S. court, thereby overcoming obstacles created by the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Morrison v. Nat» l Australia Bank Ltd..

No single bishop did dare to claim he would be the highest bishop of all bishops and had the right to predetermine the decisions of the Councils.

so questioning their right to claim christain on your definition is in fact making that decision based on the fact that you think they are wrong.

Among them are the rights to: bullet joint parenting; bullet joint adoption; bullet joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); bullet status as next - of - kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent; bullet joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; bullet dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support; bullet immigration and residency for partners from other countries; bullet inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; bullet joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment; bullet inheritance of jointly - owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); bullet benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; bullet spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home; bullet veterans» discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns; bullet joint filing of customs claims when traveling; bullet wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; bullet bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child; bullet decision - making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her; bullet crime victims» recovery benefits; bullet loss of consortium tort benefits; bullet domestic violence protection orders; bullet judicial protections and evidentiary immunity; bullet and more...

It is entirely possible that, at a time when very important decisions have to be made and acted upon for the good of humankind and the planet as a whole, far too many people will focus their attention on their own immediate vicinity and insist on claiming their individual right to act within it as they wish.

Given that assumption, the right to choose one's religion is the right to free participation in a political discourse that is also full, a discourse in which no claim that purports to be a contribution to political decision is immune to criticism and, if contested, requires argumentative redemption.

The LDS leadership fight any attempt of members to claim the right to legitimately have a controversy over them and their decisions.

With respect to both internal deviants and external enemies, political authority has claimed the right to make life - and - death decisions.

Although it was claimed in the press that the Second Circuit's opinion was more moderate because it did not posit a «right to die,» both decisions reach the same result from the same principle.

By the end of the sons eulogy my thoughts turned to the linesman who had chalked out our goal and I wondered if i could run him over with the most minimal of contact and then claim it was the right decision?

By submitting an Entry, each Participant (whether declared a Winner or not) agrees (and agrees to affirm such in writing) to (i) abide by and be bound by these Official Rules and the decisions of DeliciousBaby on all matters relating to this Giveaway which decisions are final and binding in all respects, (ii) waive any right to claim ambiguity in the Giveaway or these Official Rules, (iii) forever and irrevocably release, discharge, indemnify and hold harmless the Giveaway Entities, and each of their respective officers, directors, licensors, employees, representatives and agents (collectively, the «Released Parties») from any liability, claims, demands, and cause of action from personal injury, loss or damage, including death, or property damage, theft, or loss suffered or resulting in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, from participation in this Giveaway or the use, misuse or acceptance or possession of the Prize or any portion thereof, or participation in any Giveaway - related activity; (iv) grant DeliciousBaby (where permitted by law) the right to use their name on a worldwide basis, in all forms of media, in perpetuity without review or further compensation and, (v) warrant and represent that the use of the materials submitted in this Giveaway will not violate the rights of any third parties.

After separating from their partners, two non-biological mothers were denied the right to visitation with their children, since they had no claim to parenthood under New York's 1991 decision.

With so many car seats out there in the market that claim to be the best, it is really hard to know what the right decision is to make.

That is where ideologies come in: they offer us maps that assist in making those decisions, and each ideology claims that it possesses the right map, insisting on the correctness of its interpretation of events and on the wholesomeness of its remedies, although it is highly unlikely that an ideal solution is available.

State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says Assemblyman William Scarborough's expected decision to plead guilty to illegally claiming over $ 40,000 in travel expenses is «the right thing to do.»

You can not claim to believe in democracy unless you have faith in the people, faith in their inherent goodness, faith in their capacity to make the right decisions, given the right information.

Mr Woyome who claims his human rights has been abused and was occasioned by the Review Decision of the Supreme Court of Ghana has sent this aspect of the case to the African Court on Human and Peoples» Right in Arusha Tanzania by invoking article 40 read together with article 75 of the 1992 constitution of The Republic of Ghana under case number Ref: AfCHPR / Reg.

The Conservative MP who announced last night he would stand down at the next election after allegations over his parliamentary expense claims, made the right decision, David Cameron saidtoday.

«Solomon was wise: his decision was meant to elicit a response that would reveal the faulty claim because he didn't have enough information to make the right decision,» she said.

The DCCC's claim that Katko said «denying women access to contraception is the «right decision»» stems from comments the Republican challenger made about the Hobby Lobby decision in an interview with The Citizen.

Wednesday's decision reversed a lower court ruling, and revived claims by Texas - based groups and individuals, including the McAllen Grace Brethren Church, that the regulation violated their rights under the First Amendment's free exercise clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

In a subsequent post on its website, the union went bonkers, claiming, «Corporate millionaires and special interests have mounted an all - out assault on educators by attempting to do away with laws protecting teachers from arbitrary firings, providing transparency in layoff decisions and supporting due process rights.»

58 As Catharine MacKinnon argues in the pages of this Issue, these decisions have undermined efforts to hold schools accountable through the private right of action because schools can do very little and still satisfy the standard.59 As such, it is possible that this state of affairs further encourages individuals to seek relief from OCR, elevating the need for OCR to provide «effective protection» and decrease the time it takes to investigate claims.

• School Expansion, Growth & Strategic Planning • State and Federal Employment Law • School Board and Nonprofit Governance • Administrative Law & Appeals of State and Federal Agency Decisions and Actions • Special Investigations & Legal / Compliance Audits • Policy Guidance and Development • Constitutional Challenges and Claims • School Employee and School Board Training • Litigation in Federal and State Courts • Administrative Hearings and Appeals Before State and Federal Agencies • Public Entity Purchasing and Procurement; Business Transactions; & Contract Negotiation, Review and Drafting • Construction Law, AIA Construction Contracts, Review and Drafting • Real Estate Transactions and Condemnation • Special Education under IDEA and Section 504 • Student Rights & Discipline Issues and Hearings • State and Federal Claims of Discrimination • State and Federal Civil Rights • Administrative Grievances and Hearings • False Claims Act / Qui Tam Defense for Local Government Entities

If you've made the decision to purchase extra liability coverage so you are prepared for the possibility of umbrella insurance claims, get the help you need to get the right protection in place.

Judgment — The formal decision of a court upon the respective rights and claims of the parties to an action or suit.

Over the years, the right of standing, won in the 1965 «Scenic Hudson Decision,» has been eroded by court rulings increasingly limiting those eligible to claim harm from a proposed development.

And in Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. v. Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, 2010 SCC 43, the Supreme Court of Canada found that «the duty to consult extends to «strategic, higher level decisions» that may have an impact on Aboriginal claims and rights»; however, the court concluded then, «We leave for another day the question of whether government conduct includes legislative action... ``

In similar fashion, EC Regulation 44/2001 and the EU Court of Justice decision of FBTO v Odenbreit allow British holidaymakers to initiate claims against the EU insurers of negligent third parties in the English jurisdiction, provided the country of origin permits a direct right of action against an insurer.

Claiming that the choice of legal basis lead to a denial of its right under the Protocol, the UK decided to bring an action for annulment of the Council Decision 2012 / 776 / EU.

As you may recall, in a 5 - 4 decision back in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that Ledbetter's claim against her employer for paying her less than her male counterparts because of her gender was time barred because her present lower pay arose out of salary decisions made years earlier, well outside of the 180 - day statute of limitations for discriminatory employment practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

The District Court claims that the ECJ had «repeatedly ruled on the doctrine of acquired rights» and that «[i] n principles [they] can not be withdrawn by subsequent decisions.

The wife appealed the decision, claiming amongst other things that her right to family life (and presumably to remarry) was affected by this decision.

As described by Lawyers Weekly, the court's decision provides that «a franchisor's rights to enforce noncompetition and nonsolicitation agreements are not claims that a debtor can discharge,» as long as the franchisor «does not alternatively have a right to payment of monetary damages.»

Within hours of the Tsilhqot» in Nation decision the Tahltan First Nation announced it planned to launch an Aboriginal rights and title claim (Emma Crawford Hampel and Nelson Bennett «First Nations armed with Supreme Court ruling put mines in their sights» June 27, 2014, The First Perspective).

He also challenged the Secretary of State's finding that his human rights claim was clearly unfounded, as this removed his right of appeal in the UK against her decision.

«It is just as difficult for DCO country claimants to prove their claims: they are just as frightened, the evidence is equally unavailable, yet they have half the time to prove their claim and no right to appeal bad decisions.

Flying Dog fought back with a federal lawsuit claiming the ban violated its rights under the First Amendment to free expression, and, on Tuesday, June 28, the commission reversed its decision banning Raging Bitch.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) showed «subservience» to the UK courts in its recent decision on four British men detained in Saudi Arabia, a leading legal commentator has claimed.

In its decision, one of the judges referred to the claim for equal human rights protection as an effort to seek «the validation of homosexual relations, including sodomy, as a protected and fundamental right... rebutting a millennia of moral teaching» and then shockingly went on to liken the protection of sexual orientation in human rights legislation with the «violently aberrant sexual configurations» of mass murderers Jeffrey Dahmer, Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olsen.

Finally, although the judiciary strives to uphold claims to privilege, recent case law (in particular RBS Rights Issue Litigation, Re [2016] EWCH 3161 (Ch)-RRB- demonstrates the significant constraints they are operating in to meet the requirements of the controversial Court of Appeal decision in Three Rivers District Council (No 5)[2003] EWCA Civ 474, [2003] All ER (D) 59 (Apr)(TR5) where, among other things, «client» was narrowly defined.

The shrinkage comes after a rocky 2007, the blog notes, «marked by a host of 3 - 2 decisions divided down party lines, a complaint issued against it by the AFL - CIO which claimed the board was systematically destroying the right of employees to unionize and conduct union activities, and a congressional hearing where members of the Board were called before U.S. lawmakers to explain the situation.»

Such challenges are, in principle, possible and it is quite conceivable that a claim could be brought on the basis that the decision is irrational or unreasonable or indeed ultra vires in light of the right to a fair trial.

Last month, the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Tanudjaja v. Canada (Attorney General) upheld the Superior Court's dismissal of a novel claim, alleging that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms confers a positive right to housing.

Take for example, the 2012 Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision, Al - Dandachi v. SNC - Lavalin Inc., in which the defendant brought a motion to strike out all references in a plaintiff's statement of claim relating to his human rights claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.