Sentences with phrase «ruling furthers the purpose»

«This ruling furthers the purpose of copyright by recognizing that Google's Book search is a transformative fair use that advances research and learning.»

Not exact matches

A personalistic philosophy of life does not offer us absolute knowledge;... we discover divine purpose in so far as our human purposes are ruled by the New Testament principles of logos and agape - reason and love.

A blog is unfortunately far too limited a medium to be able to do justice to the topic and it would also go far beyond the blog's purpose and rules which I always try to honour.

But you don't have to squint too hard to also see the itinerant community as an all - purpose analog for the ghettos of Nazi Germany, America's inner cities, and all of those other places where unwanted, powerless peoples have been herded off far from the backyards of the ruling class.

In writing Mildred, who's seething at the local police's inability to find her daughter's brutal murderers, McDonagh was out for nothing less than to create a new female archetype for the screen: an unapologetic woman who isn't following the rules, who feels no need to be likable, whose purpose goes far beyond what's typically explored in a traditional female character.

«That the Regents find that the proposed charter school: (1) meets the requirements set out in Article 56 of the Education Law, and all other applicable laws, rules and regulations; (2) will operate in an educationally and fiscally sound manner; (3) is likely to improve student learning and achievement and materially further the purposes set out in subdivision two of section twenty - eight hundred fifty of Article 56 of the Education Law; and (4) will have a significant educational benefit to the students expected to attend the charter school, and the Board of Regents therefore approves and issues a charter and provisional charter to the Capital Preparatory Harlem Charter School for a term of five years in accordance with § 2851 (2)(p) of the Education Law.

And the whole purpose of the new rules as far as I can tell is just to cool the market off.

Doing these things will, of course, further complicate the Rules and Regulations that are part and parcel of the Internal Revenue Code in that the Internal Revenue Service might have to do something about Senior Loans, masquerading in effect, as Preferred Stocks strictly for tax - shelter purposes.

* An «eligible stay» for the purpose of this Promotion is defined as any stay of one or more consecutive nights at the same Best Western branded hotel, with the exception of a stay booked through an online travel agency, a stay booked through a tour operator, or a stay booked at a special discounted rate (see Best Western Rewards program rules for further information on eligibility criteria).

** An «eligible stay» for the purposes of this Offer is defined as any stay (i.e., one or more consecutive nights at the same Best Western branded hotel) with the exception of a stay booked through an online travel agency, a stay booked through a tour operator, and a stay booked at a special discounted rate (see Best Western Rewards program rules for further information on eligibility criteria).

*** «Best Western Rewards Points» for the purposes of this Offer is defined as Points that result from eligible stays only but excluding Bonus Points or promotional points (see Best Western Rewards program rules for further information on definitions for these capitalized terms).

** true, because people play a game based on the rules as stated (so far as they've been told those rules), there can be an inherent level of fairness in not changing the rules, but if the unfairness or other problems in not changing the rules would persist for a long time, then it can be better to change the rules; some phasing in of the changes over time can help alleviate shocks to the economy and in some cases, som compensation may be offered to those who are giving something up (but preferably not the sort of compensation that actually erodes the purpose of the change in the rules).

In any event, the purpose of the bill should be found in the Preamble, or failing this should be found by the statement of the bill's sponsor at 2d reading further to the rule in Pepper v. Hart (UK) which is admissible in Canada as evidence of the legislative intent of the particular bill.

«There is still to be a new rules committee for online court claims, the online procedure rules committee, whose purpose will be to formulate new rules specifically applicable to online dispute resolution, with an emphasis on simplicity of language appropriate for litigants - in - person and so far as possible common rules for all three jurisdictions.»

There is further a case from 1982, which gives us a firm idea of what the USA's Supreme Court thinks about state laws that conflict with or contradict a federal law with explicit purpose and rule:

Coordination of civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law is appropriate if one judge hearing all of the actions for all purposes in a selected site or sites will promote the ends of justice taking into account whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation; the convenience of parties, witnesses, and counsel; the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; the calendar of the courts; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and, the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied.

Further, under rule 20.04 (2.2), a judge for the purpose of weighing the evidence, evaluating credibility, and drawing inferences may order that oral evidence be presented by one or more parties, with or without time limits on its presentation.

Now is the time to conduct a global review of the rules, examining whether they still further their purposes.

The purpose of the rule is to ensure, as far as possible, that parties can put forward their best positions without risk of showing their hand to a tribunal.

Recognizing the need to prevent harm to the public from the unethical practice of law and recognizing the need to provide a clear and timely understanding of the ethics of practicing law; and further acting under its inherent power to regulate the practice of law, this court promulgates the following rules for the purpose of making available advisory opinions on the ethical considerations of the practice of law.

In a decision with far - reaching implications for patent misuse doctrine generally, the court (1) affirmed that patent misuse is applicable only to specific anticompetitive patentee conduct; and (2) recognized that an agreement between partners to a joint venture not to compete with the venture can have legitimate and pro-competitive purposes, and therefore can be condemned only on proof of anticompetitive effects under the rule of reason.

To clarify further that health oversight disclosure rules apply generally in health care fraud investigations (subject to the exception described above), in the final rule, we eliminate proposed § 164.510 (f)(5)(i), which would have established requirements for disclosure related to health fraud for law enforcement purposes.

Further, we received many comments requesting clarification as to whether specific entities or persons were «health care providers» for the purposes of our rule.

To clarify further that health oversight disclosure rules apply generally in health care fraud investigations (subject to the exception described above), in the final rule, we eliminate proposed § 164.510 (f)(5)(i), which would have established requirements for disclosure related to health care fraud for law enforcement purposes.

Similarly, because information disclosed to a grand jury is vital to law enforcement purposes and is covered by secrecy protection, this rule allows disclosure with no further process.

The appellate court reversed the trial court, determining that the Co-op did have the power to eject the Shareholder, so long as it followed its own rules and acted in good faith while furthering its corporate purpose.