Sentences with phrase «ruling by the court majority»

In his dissent, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that the Constitution «had nothing to do with» that ruling by the court majority.

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).

Supreme Court justices ruled, by a majority of eight to three, that Prime Minister Theresa May can not lawfully bypass MPs and peers by using the royal prerogative to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and start the two - year process of negotiating the UK's divorce from its EU partners.

According to the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), Senate rules can be changed by a simple majority vote.

U.S. Senate Republicans deployed the so - called «nuclear option» and changed longstanding rules to clear the way for the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court, bypassing a precedent - breaking Democratic filibuster by allowing the nomination to go forward on a simple majority vote.

WASHINGTON — A majority of the Supreme Court appears poised to overrule a 1977 case allowing public sector union «agency fees» — a ruling that would end the fees, which are paid by non-members to support public sector unions» collective bargaining work.

The situation in columbia is ocnfused, their suppreme court ruled that marriage registrars must register marriages for gay people, but their senate said no by a big majority

The Appellate Division of State Supreme Court has ruled that the Orange County Legislature was wrong when it voted by a simple majority to create a local development corporation to sell the county's Valley View nursing home.

Today's ruling, handed down by the U.S. District Court, comes after lawyers representing Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos asked that the special master only oversee the process only oversee the lines for Congressional districts.

Then six years later, the European Court of Human Rights, by the thinnest majority, ruled that the killings were illegal and «disproportionate to the perceived threat» — there was never actually a bomb in Gibraltar at the time.

Control of the party has been challenged by two additional groups seeking to wrest power from a group led by Cuomo, leading a state Supreme Court judge to declare no one could claim leadership over the line until a majority of the candidates who ran last as WEP candidates sign off on the rules.

The 4 - 1 majority ruling in favour of an application brought before the Supreme Court by lawyers for Dr. Zanetor Agyeman — Rawlings was given on Thursday May 19 2016 in which the panel led by Justice William Atuguba stayed proceedings in the high court case against the candidature of Dr. Zanetor Agyeman - Rawlings pending the interpretation of article 94 (1)(a) of the 1992 constitution on June 2 Court by lawyers for Dr. Zanetor Agyeman — Rawlings was given on Thursday May 19 2016 in which the panel led by Justice William Atuguba stayed proceedings in the high court case against the candidature of Dr. Zanetor Agyeman - Rawlings pending the interpretation of article 94 (1)(a) of the 1992 constitution on June 2 court case against the candidature of Dr. Zanetor Agyeman - Rawlings pending the interpretation of article 94 (1)(a) of the 1992 constitution on June 2 2016.

The Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court ruling that the Republicans» creation of a 63rd seat — a move the Democrats insist was motivated solely by the GOP's desire to maintain the majority — is indeed constitutional, despite the fact that they employed two different methods for determining representaCourt of Appeals has upheld a lower court ruling that the Republicans» creation of a 63rd seat — a move the Democrats insist was motivated solely by the GOP's desire to maintain the majority — is indeed constitutional, despite the fact that they employed two different methods for determining representacourt ruling that the Republicans» creation of a 63rd seat — a move the Democrats insist was motivated solely by the GOP's desire to maintain the majority — is indeed constitutional, despite the fact that they employed two different methods for determining representation.

A portion of the article reads: «On issues of pure politics, and going by which party appointed them; the way they have historically voted on political issues; and their posture and voting pattern during the Election Petition Case of 2012; and in the case of a non-unanimous decision, the majority of the current panel of the Supreme Court will likely rule in favour of the stance preferred by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in this case and the minority for the stance of the National Democratic Congress (NDC).»

On issues of pure politics, and going by which party appointed them; the way they have historically voted on political issues; and their posture and voting pattern during the Election Petition Case of 2012; and in the case of a non-unanimous decision, the majority of the current panel of the Supreme Court will likely rule in favour of the stance preferred by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in this case and the minority for the stance of the National Democratic Congress (NDC).

In a judgment that sets a far - reaching constitutional precedent and upholds parliamentary sovereignty, the court ruled by a majority of eight justices to three that MPs and peers must give their consent before the government can trigger article 50 and formally initiate Brexit.

But the Supreme Court majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the EPA acted unlawfully when it failed to consider how much the regulation would cost the power industry before deciding to craft the rule.

San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Steve Malone ruled that the Adelanto School District trustees illegally rejected the petition submitted by a majority of parents to turn Desert Trails Elementary into a charter school.

It is worth noting that the majority of the justices on that court were appointed by presidents of the same political party as Mr. McConnell — a good indicator that this legal decision, and the rules in question, are the result of sound law, policy, and science, not politics.

First, they have to face the possibility that in the absence of some alternative method of reining in carbon emissions, the EPA will, in the end, be allowed by the courts to proceed with its draconian and expensive regulations, a possibility made more likely by the death of Justice Scalia, who voted with the majority in the Court's 5 - 4 decision to stay the application of EPA rules.

The article states that the majority of courts now appear to require the proponent to authenticate a Web site under Rule 901 (b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which permits authentication by» [t] estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be.»

Therefore, through the recognition of the primacy of EU law norms, but with the crucial qualification that such primacy is conditional on the constitutional authorisation of the domestic legal order in accordance with Parliamentary Sovereignty, the majority of the Supreme Court justices justify their claim that «we would not accept that the so - called fundamental rule of recognition (ie the fundamental rule by reference to which all other rules are validated) underlying UK laws has been varied by the 1972 Act or would be varied by its repeal» [Paragraph 60].

This brief AP story details the basics of the Court's majority ruling authored by Justice Kennedy.

Landmark Charter decisions have become rarer and references to the living tree have declined in recent years.39 In one recent decision, Consolidated Fastfrate v. Western Canada Council of Teamsters, a 6 - 3 majority of the Court employed a traditional division of powers analysis and found that the appellant's business was subject to provincial jurisdiction based on the «nature of its operation» — meaning that it conducted its business entirely within the province — and the long - accepted rule that works and undertakings are generally to be regulated by the provinces.

The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that «treaties» (ratified by 2/3 of the Senate as specified in Article II) have the same legal effect in US law as regular legislation passed by Congress (by a simple majority of both houses), which means that Congress can modify or repeal (insofar as US law is concerned) any «treaty» that is ratified by the Senate, by passing a later law that contradicts it, just like it can with regular legislation.

(Order, p. 2) As the court notes in its summary of the order, an acquittal can issue either when a jury returns a not - guilty verdict, or «when a trial court grants a defendant's new trial motion for evidentiary insufficiency... or dismisses a case... for evidentiary insufficiency» (Id., pp. 2 — 3) The essence of the court's decision is in two parts: (1) The new trial motion should not have been granted because there was sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Stern on counts of conspiracy; and (2) Because the trial court did not rule on the majority of the issues raised in Stern's motion for a new trial, those issues have yet to be decided, and should be addressed on remand by the court of appeals.

Solicitors acting for the buyer of a property purportedly «sold» by an imposter were liable for the losses suffered by their client, the Court of Appeal has ruled by a majority in the long - awaited decision in Dreamvar However, the court also found that seller's solicitors liable, meaning that the other solicitors could sue them for a contribuCourt of Appeal has ruled by a majority in the long - awaited decision in Dreamvar However, the court also found that seller's solicitors liable, meaning that the other solicitors could sue them for a contribucourt also found that seller's solicitors liable, meaning that the other solicitors could sue them for a contribution.

On April 15, 2016, three days after Sargent was decided, the Supreme Court of Canada released its ruling in R v Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13 where, in a 6 - 3 majority opinion written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, s. 5 (3)(a)(i)(D) of the CDSA was declared unconstitutional.

Today, the majority of the court ruled in R. v. Bingley that a DRE's training and experience do make them experts and thus their opinions generally do not need to be further vetted by a judge before it can be presented as evidence in court.

The emphasis in Pt 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules on the experts» duty to the court, and the several decisions of the appellate courts concerning experts» conflicts of interest and independence, has encouraged a more professional approach by the vast majority of experts.

He then referred to articles by Dr F.A. Mann (whose own expertise and reputation in the area were considerable) and Dr E.J. Cohn and pointed out that, from the 19th Century, civil law countries had accepted that a waiver of sovereign immunity by a contract was effective, that the speeches in Duff were obiter and did not constitute a majority and that both Duff and Kahan overlooked the fact that submission in the face of the court was not the only form of valid submission since the introduction of a new Rule in the RSC in 1920 that the English court had jurisdiction to entertain an action where there was a contractual submission.

The vast majority of states either place the membership directly into the constitution (24 states), as Georgia currently has, or the membership is set by the state's supreme court / court of last resort via court rule (10 states).

The chief justice and a majority of the supreme court, in consultation with the administrative judges of the superior and circuit courts and other nonjudicial branch officers as established by court rule, shall design and implement by court rule, a program for performance evaluation of judges and court personnel... The program for performance evaluation shall ensure that each judge and court employee is evaluated a minimum of once every 3 years.

The chief justice and a majority of the supreme court, in consultation with the administrative judges of the superior and circuit courts and other nonjudicial branch officers as established by court rule, shall design and implement by court rule, a program for performance evaluation of judges

An earlier version of the policy was considered by the Supreme Court in SG, in which the Supreme Court narrowly (by a 3 - 2 majority) ruled that the -LSB-...]

The Court of Appeal dismissed HMT's appeal and ruled, by majority, that the loan repayments through Mr Hunt's refinancing did not reduce the damages recoverable.

The high court's majority rejected the position taken by other federal appeals courts and by the commission that the «paycheck accrual rule?

In summary, the Court has (by majority of 8 to 3) dismissed the Government's appeal against the Divisional Court's judgment, and has ruled that the Government has no power under -LSB-...]

The majority of the Court of Appeal held this practice amounts to a separate system of legal rules unaffected by the ordinary principles of property and company law.

The majority at the Federal Court of Appeal disagreed with that assessment, but the Supreme Court today — in a unanimous ruling written by Justice Marshall Rothstein — restores the tribunal's original decision.

Both solutions will occur because the power of the news media and of the internet, interacting, will quickly make widely known these types of information, the cumulative effect of which will force governments and the courts to act: (1) the situations of the thousands of people whose lives have been ruined because they could not obtain the help of a lawyer; (2) the statistics as to the increasing percentages of litigants who are unrepresented and clogging the courts, causing judges to provide more public warnings; (3) the large fees that some lawyers charge; (4) increasing numbers of people being denied Legal Aid and court - appointed lawyers; (5) the many years that law societies have been unsuccessful in coping with this problem which continues to grow worse; (6) people prosecuted for «the unauthorized practice of law» because they tried to help others desperately in need of a lawyer whom they couldn't afford to hire; (7) that there is no truly effective advertising creating competition among law firms that could cause them to lower their fees; (8) that law societies are too comfortably protected by their monopoly over the provision of legal services, which is why they might block the expansion of the paralegal profession, and haven't effectively innovated with electronic technology and new infrastructure so as to be able to solve this problem; (9) that when members of the public access the law society website they don't see any reference to the problem that can assure them that something effective is being done and, (10) in order for the rule of law, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the whole of Canada's constitution be able to operate effectively and command sufficient respect, the majority of the population must be able to obtain a lawyer at reasonable cost.

The test, as the majority judgment and the dissent agree is that there must be enough evidence in the file to allow the appellate court to rule on the new issue, and the failure to raise it at first instance can not be the result of a strategic choice by the party that seeks to raise it on appeal.

As most legislation includes text voluntarily drafted by interested parties and their representatives, the text covered by the Court ruling represents the majority of Federal and provincial legislation in Canada.

Writing for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada, La Forest J found that the rules violated mobility rights guaranteed by the Charter and rejected the Law Society's contention «that legal services delivered to the public of Alberta would be endangered by interprovincial law firms -LSB-.]»

There is a myriad of cases in the US... but also the decision of the British House of Lords in Spring v. Guardian Assurance, in which a majority of the court ruled that employers can be held liable for damages caused to employees by negligently prepared references.

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that «Supreme Court rules against Bush in death - row case; A 6 - to - 3 majority said the president can't order a state court to abide by an international court ruling.&rCourt rules against Bush in death - row case; A 6 - to - 3 majority said the president can't order a state court to abide by an international court ruling.&rcourt to abide by an international court ruling.&rcourt ruling.»

To elaborate, the majority opinion took great pains [see FR, pp. 75 - 76] to highlight the similarities between the Hellenic and the Italian legal order, while endorsing unconditionally the position adopted by the Constitutional Court of Italy in its celebrated Sentenza 238/2014 (nullifying as unconstitutional a municipal law binding domestic courts to follow the ICJ's ruling in the Jurisdictional Immunities Case).

The vast majority of states do not mention homosexuality or sexual orientation in their adoption statutes, therefore legality and what is allowed is determined by case law or court rulings.

(1) A party to proceedings in which a Judicial Registrar has exercised a power delegated under subsection 26B (1) may, within the time prescribed by, or within such further time as is allowed in accordance with, Rules of Court made by the Judges or a majority of them, apply to the Court to review the exercise of the power.