Sentences with phrase «rights under the state constitution»

Reed is also less troublesome to Lindseth to the extent that the court's decision was based on students» equal protection rights under the state constitution rather than on the guarantee of an adequate education.

The lawsuit, filed by the nonprofit Public Interest Law Office of Rochester in September 1998, claims that the state has deprived the plaintiffs — all low - income black and Hispanic students — of their rights under the state constitution to a sound basic education by failing to alleviate concentrations of poverty in the 37,000 - student Rochester school district.

Resolution 13 - 04.16 demands «all actions» to ensure that California's 121 charter cities lose state funding if they exercise their right under the state constitution to establish their own policies concerning government - mandated construction wage rates on purely municipal government projects or private projects that only receive government assistance from that municipality.

Jepsen lightly approached the question of where Judge Thomas Moukawsher's broad indictment of public K - 12 education was right or wrong as a matter of policy, but the appeal sharply attacks the judge's legal basis for ruling that shortcomings he identified violate students» rights under the state Constitution to a free and adequate education.

Not exact matches

Attorney Robert Dolinko of San Francisco labor and employment law firm Nixon Peabody is doubtful Senigaglia would have a strong case if she alleged a violation of privacy, which is a right under the state of California's constitution.

A district court has granted a plaintiff's motion to remand a lawsuit back to a state court after the plaintiff, who was seeking a waiver of ineligibility from the Kentucky High School Athletics Association, withdrew his allegation that his rights under the United States Constitution were violated.

Moreover, each and every member of Congress should be notified that he or she is personally liable (can be sued) for his or her own failure, or the same in conspiracy with other members, to perform what is a ministerial and constitutional duty, that is, to require and / or insist that Presidential electoral votes only be counted for candidates who are «natural born citizens» under Article II of the United States Constitution, the failure of which creates a cause of action for deprivation of claimants» constitutional rights (as allowed under the Bivens case) against employees of the Federal Government, in this case, to a lawful President and Commander in Chief, and therefore, for deprivation of adequate continuation of the United States as a Constitutional Republic.

Firstly, gun rights are protected under the United States Constitution.

To protect the Committee's fundamental rights under the United States and New York State Constitutions against the partisan use of state power, the Committee requests that the Court quash the subpoena and issue a protective order directing that the Committee need not respond to the subpoena's remaining demands.&rState Constitutions against the partisan use of state power, the Committee requests that the Court quash the subpoena and issue a protective order directing that the Committee need not respond to the subpoena's remaining demands.&rstate power, the Committee requests that the Court quash the subpoena and issue a protective order directing that the Committee need not respond to the subpoena's remaining demands.»

Because SUNY is a public institution, students» due process rights are automatically protected under the state and federal constitutions.

We write in our capacity as citizens of the Republic of Ghana invoking the powers of this Commission under Article 218 (a) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana and section 7 (1)(i) of the CHRAJ Act 1993 (Act 456), as amended, which states «to investigate complaints of violations of fundamental rights and freedoms, injustice, corruption, abuse of power and unfair treatment of any person by a public officer in the exercise of his official duties», to investigate a case of professional misconduct bothering on official corruption and corruption - related activities involving ACP Mrs. Maame Yaa Tiwaa Addo Danquah, the current acting Director - General of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service.

That case, which NY State fought for a decade resolved that young people in NY have a right under our Constitution to a «sound basic education.»

Under the Constitution's construction, the right to keep and bear arms is universal to all American citizens and is, therefore, transferable from state to state.

Disclosing that efforts are being made to enhance the operational capacity of officers of the Nigeria Police force through tailor made training programme that will give them the right civil orientation in their roles as guardians of the constitution, the President said his administration will encourage the development of state - level community policing under a model that will integrate members of the community to policing functions at the grassroots level.

«That concept falls short when the state takes away the rights afforded an individual under the constitution so it's a foolish argument,» Lambert - Rudd said.

After years of what critics say was underfunding legal aid for New York's lowest income people, the Senate and Assembly passed a bill in 2016 to create a state - funded system to ensure that indigent criminal defendants receive legal representation, as is their right under the U.S. Constitution.

WHEREAS, this legislation is viewed by many citizens of the State of New York as being extremely controversial as those citizens view this Legislation as infringing upon their rights guaranteed to them under the second Amendment of the United State Constitution; and

They also say that under the state constitution's separation of powers doctrine, the commission, created by Cuomo, does not have the right to probe the legislature.

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.»

Under the new constitution, which has been approved by China's Council of State, foreign members of the academy will have the right to talk at academy meetings and submit papers for publication.

The state's highest court this month ruled against a coalition of poor rural districts, which claimed that significant differences between rich and poor jurisdictions violated the right to an education under the state constitution.

Under what's known as the «California Rule,» the Golden State's constitution protects the right of workers, from their first day on the job, to accrue future benefits.

The organization claims that what charter schools receive, typically 60 to 75 percent of what traditional public schools receive per pupil and no funding for facilities, deprives the children of their right to a «sound basic education» under the state constitution.

Under Florida's state constitution, students who have not been disciplined have an «absolute» right to attend their zoned regular school, said special education attorney Stephanie Langer of Coral Gables.

In a document filed April 1 in Merrimack County Superior Court, the state contends that «public education is not a fundamental right» under provisions of the state constitution, according to James E. Townsend, an assistant state attorney general.

When their children were not promoted to grade 4, the parents filed a class action suit in state court, alleging violations of the children's due process and equal protection rights under the state and federal constitutions.

Each state sets its own laws governing teacher tenure, dismissal and layoff policies, and the rights the students assert are given under the state constitution, so similar efforts will come in state courts.

LOS ANGELES — A California judge ruled Tuesday that teacher tenure laws deprived students of their right to an education under the State Constitution and violated their civil rights.

The Wright v. New York case was first filed in 2014, when nine families from across the state brought suit against the State of New York and others, claiming that teacher tenure, dismissal, and quality - blind layoff laws deprive New York children of their right to a sound basic education as guaranteed under the New York State Constitustate brought suit against the State of New York and others, claiming that teacher tenure, dismissal, and quality - blind layoff laws deprive New York children of their right to a sound basic education as guaranteed under the New York State ConstituState of New York and others, claiming that teacher tenure, dismissal, and quality - blind layoff laws deprive New York children of their right to a sound basic education as guaranteed under the New York State ConstituState Constitution.

«There is a question when you penalize someone for maintaining an protected right under the federal and state constitutions.

In their dissents, Liu and Cuéllar wrote that the appeals court set too high a threshold in concluding that an identifiable group of student, with common characteristics, had to be harmed — the basis for bringing a challenge involving a fundamental right to an education under the state Constitution.

It is the case where the Connecticut Supreme Court made clear that under Connecticut's State Constitution every child has the right to attend a racially diverse school.

Since the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Decision in San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, which established that public education is not a right under the federal Constitution, state courts have been the battlegrounds for resolving disputes regarding public education finance systems.

Gresham asked Attorney General Robert Cooper whether the current statutes or state law in effect prior to July 1, 2011 governing permanent employment violate students» rights to a free education under the equal protection provisions of the Tennessee or U.S. Constitution.

1) Whether the current statutes or state law in effect prior to July 1, 2011 governing permanent employment violate students» rights to a free education under the equal protection provisions of the Tennessee or U.S. Constitution.

Last month, a California judge in Vergara v. State of California ruled that teacher tenure laws deprive students of their right to an education under the state Constitution and violate their civil riState of California ruled that teacher tenure laws deprive students of their right to an education under the state Constitution and violate their civil ristate Constitution and violate their civil rights.

It shall be the function of the Service to provide assistance to communities and persons therein in resolving disputes, disagreements, or difficulties relating to discriminatory practices based on race, color, or national origin which impair the rights of persons in such communities under the Constitution or laws of the United States or which affect or may affect interstate commerce.

The plaintiffs, once again as they are in some of these other climate change cases are seeking some pretty sweeping, both declarations of their rights under the Constitution and how those rights are being infringed by both what the state of Alaska is doing and not doing, but they're also asking for a science - based plan of attack or a plan of how to deal with climate change through reducing greenhouse gas emissions based on what the science requires and that's something on the order of eight percent per year reduction in emissions plus an accounting of the emissions that the state is responsible for, and how fast they're being reduced.

«Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.»

He handles all issues relating to the constitutional rights of public employees under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and federal and state statutes.

In my opinion the ECJ's decision in Taricco I that national courts must disapply the rules of statutes of limitations if they prevent Member States from fulfilling their obligations under Article 325 TFEU (in the present case, the relevant Italian legislation) leads to perceiving serious fraud as a crime against the rights and interests of citizens, i.e., against fundamental social human rights guaranteed under Articles 2 and 3 of the Italian Constitution, and hence calls for resolving the conflict within the Italian Constitution by balancing the rights under these articles and the accused's individual rights guaranteed by the legality principle (Art. 25 (2) Const.).

Urgenda argued that the Dutch state had therefore breached a duty of care owed to them (and to Dutch society generally), had infringed their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights («ECHR»), and had contravened various obligations under international law and the Dutch Constitrights under the European Convention on Human Rights («ECHR»), and had contravened various obligations under international law and the Dutch ConstitRights («ECHR»), and had contravened various obligations under international law and the Dutch Constitution.

Lord Irvine explained his intention in his second reading speech: «The traditional freedom of the individual under an unwritten constitution... gives no protection from misuse of power by the state... Our courts will develop human rights throughout society.»

A state court is has the power to enforce greater protections to a person claiming rights, relying on the state's constitution, than those guaranteed under the federal constitution.

To prevail on his § 1983 claim, Jayne must demonstrate that the named defendants acted under color of state law and deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law.

[5] In this case, the court while reiterating the availability of some fundamental rights to arrested persons and detainees especially those available under Article 21, further held that «for violation of the Fundamental Rights to life or basic human rights, the defence of sovereign immunity is not available to the state for the established violation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India under Article 21&rrights to arrested persons and detainees especially those available under Article 21, further held that «for violation of the Fundamental Rights to life or basic human rights, the defence of sovereign immunity is not available to the state for the established violation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India under Article 21&rRights to life or basic human rights, the defence of sovereign immunity is not available to the state for the established violation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India under Article 21&rrights, the defence of sovereign immunity is not available to the state for the established violation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India under Article 21&rrights guaranteed by the Constitution of India under Article 21».

For instance, one of the speakers on the call, Scott Wolfe, Jr., recently sued the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board in U.S. District Court, alleging that the state's recently amended rules of professional conduct regarding online legal communications restrict, unduly burden, and chill the exercise of commercial speech rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments the U.S. Constitution.

-- the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 and Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship to the extent that it provides that the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states, shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time, and whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of law.

-- the provision «the following persons shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time: (1) persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states» of Paragraph 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship, to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren, provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, and who are residing in other states, is not in conflict with Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of law;

The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation into whether Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 and Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship, to the extent that it provides that the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states, shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time, and whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution, and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of law.