Sentences with phrase «ruling in that case sided»

(A 2014 ruling in that case sided...

(A 2014 ruling in that case sided with the students but was overturned by an appellate court earlier this year; the plaintiffs are now appealing to the California Supreme Court.)

Not exact matches

It doesn't take much to see how that could have led to rules that'd apply the same standards across the board — only, in that case, it would've had the side effect of bolstering online privacy on all sides.

In December, the Yukon appeal court sided with the Ross River Dena Council that existing free - entry staking rules conflicted with the constitutional duty to consult aboriginal groups with outstanding land claims, in this case to an area known as the KaskIn December, the Yukon appeal court sided with the Ross River Dena Council that existing free - entry staking rules conflicted with the constitutional duty to consult aboriginal groups with outstanding land claims, in this case to an area known as the Kaskin this case to an area known as the Kaska.

Although he has ruled in several cases in favor of police accused of conducting illegal searches, he is best known for his opinions siding with defendants.

The two sides are trading briefs in the case, but the government made it clear this week that Thrivent should not worry about class action remaining a part of the rule.

Does the Supreme Court's ruling striking down state prohibitions of abortion in the 1973 cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton belong on the plus side of the Court's ledger with Brown v. Board or on the minus side with Dred Scott?

He is likely to side with the four justices who were willing to rule with the plaintiffs in the Friedrichs case.

Attorneys on both sides have argued that prior rulings by New York's Court of Appeals, which lay the foundation for the state laws that apply in the federal case, break in their favor.

Caproni said both sides in Silver's case will be given five weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court rules on McDonnell's appeal of his corruption conviction to file a revised motion and rebuttals.

The ruling is not technically binding in other counties with pending tobacco cases, but Bill Ogle, a lawyer working on Proctor's behalf, hoped the Duval ruling would have persuasive sway in other counties and help develop a consensus for Proctor's side.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Chief Judge Royce Lamberth, who earlier had ruled against the National Institutes of Health, this time came down on NIH's side in several key arguments in the case.

Just in case we think he's a racist bigot, we then cut to the Mexican side, where we meet Dr. Jose Manuel Mireles and his «Autodefensas» as they confront, head - on, the drug lords who rule their area.

Second, even in the many cases where courts have sided with the plaintiffs and demanded financing reforms, the courts have typically ruled that individual local districts are free to raise and spend above the level they deem «adequate.»

The case culminated with the Louisiana State Supreme Court siding with public education advocates in ruling the legislation to expand vouchers unconstitutional.

Should the court rule on the side of liberty in the Janus case, it will be a blow for worker freedom, but there is a lot more work to do.

Some states treat subrogation attempts on a case by case basis, in an effort to avoid creating a blanket ruling in favor of either side which would be applicable to future cases.

As we saw in the Minnesota case, consensus does not rule, but rather there are two sides that are given equal time.

For example, in Colorado civil cases, some of the more common grounds for an award of attorneys» fees to a defending party are: (a) a two - sided contractual fee shifting term, (b) dismissal of the case before filing an answer for failure to state a claim when tort claims were asserted, (c) a determination that the suit was groundless, frivolous or vexatious, (d) violation of certain rules relating to disclosure of information to the other party, (e) a statutory fee shifting provision in the case of a claim based upon a statutorily created right which is present in some statutes but not others.

Also the comment about the flip side that there is «a 5 - year permanent residence system for third - country nationals already under EU law» which would give some certainty already for Brits in the EU will not work once these Brits are no longer EU... they would only benefit under these rules post-Brexit if they have a qualifying EEA family member, in all other cases they would probably fall under the individual states» national laws.

If I offer a fixed - price «contested» divorce, for example, then the incentive for the client is to make full - use of that pricing model and to regularly and repeatedly want to: 1) talk about their case (i.e., their evil spouse's latest antics) on the phone or in - person; 2) file more motions to get their spouse to do something, to prevent their spouse from doing something, or to object to something the court ruled; 3) send more «demand letters» or make more phone calls to the opposing party or their attorney to tell them to return the car seat, or to complain that they dropped off the child 15 minutes late, etc; and 4) respond to ad hoc motions from the other side (motions for attorney's fees, motions to compel discovery, motions for summary disposition, motions to enforce, etc).

Joe Groia and the Law Society of Upper Canada remain at loggerheads as both sides are challenging an appeal panel ruling that was partly favourable to the Toronto lawyer in the long - running civility case.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that «Justices rule for death row inmates with low IQ ``; «Court blocks protester case against Secret Service ``; «Supreme Court says Mich. can't block Indian casino ``; and «High court sides with police over fatal chase.»

Providing that the judge is scrupulous to avoid descent into the arena and any claim to control of either side's case, such case management is desirable and necessary in pursuit of the overriding objective set out in the Criminal Procedure Rules.

In characterizing the lawyer's case as «a moving target,» the court found that the lawyer's lack of preparation increased the costs for the other side, justifying a Rule 57.07 order.

In these cases, you may be presumed negligent if you drove under the influence of alcohol or drugs, did not observe right - of - way rules, or drove on the wrong side of the road.

As I understand this Rule, at least on the family court side, ENE will now provide party - litigants and their attorneys with a process for «test - driving» their respective positions before a selected ENE «evaluator» and receive, among other things, «in a family court case... the likely result of a trial of all issues».

Furthermore, in a trial of this nature, involving thousands of documents and complicated issues of proof, the concept of a «fair trial,» demanded by the rule of law, obligates counsel for both sides to co-operate in ways that may not be necessary in other cases, which are not as complex or of such long duration.

Goodyear Canada Inc. v. American International Companies Henry v. Aviva Canada Inc. (May 29, 2014), FSCO P13 - 00016 (Blackman) HPARB Rules on Kinesiologists and FAE Reports Featured Case: C.M. & P.M. Implied Conditions in Rental Agreements: Szilvasy and Collett claims against Reliance Home Comfort LAT Reconsideration Leduc v. Aviva Canada Inc. (June 25, 2014), FSCO A12 - 001105 (Ahlfeld) McCague Borlack on winning side of two cases released by the Supreme Court of Canada this week Navage v. Aviva Canada Inc. (May 6, 2014), FSCO A13 - 0000006 (Mutch) No Nonsense LAT — MB at the forefront!

And Tennessee's John Day catches a noteworthy automotive preemption case: «The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has ruled that a products liability claim was preempted by FMVSS 205, a safety standard that it says permits vehicle manufacturers to make a choice between tempered glass and laminated glass in side windows.

After both sides present their case, the judiciary official in charge will make a ruling on your MD traffic ticket.

Some states treat subrogation attempts on a case by case basis, in an effort to avoid creating a blanket ruling in favor of either side which would be applicable to future cases.

After each side makes their case, the judicial officer in charge will make a ruling of either guilty or not guilty.

The duty of an insurance agent is to understand your need and situation and suggest a plan accordingly, but in most of the cases, the agents look for their one sided benefit while selling insurance policies and rule out your needs and situation.

What I like about mediation, at least mediation with an attorney - mediator, is that you can talk about the rules and the exceptions, and the laws and case law that supports each side in a very open way.

The lawyers employ the adversarial process, where each side in a dispute has the right to present its case as persuasively as possible, subject to the rules of evidence, and a judge decides the outcome.

So, what the learned, but possibly biased (remember, the 50/50 rule pro or con here) Judge has publicly stated as reasoning for the continuance of Dale's suit is, in «my» own words, that... «In my mind (according to how I personally see things in my own biased mind (I am human after all) from my own psychological / political perspective re how I want to apply the wording of the law in this particular case), Mr. Dale has the «legal» right to continue with his lawsuit because I, being the sole judge of the presented facts and tactics of persuasion as presented by both sides in this dispute, side with Mr. Dale more so than with TREB and CREA for the following reason (sin «my» own words, that... «In my mind (according to how I personally see things in my own biased mind (I am human after all) from my own psychological / political perspective re how I want to apply the wording of the law in this particular case), Mr. Dale has the «legal» right to continue with his lawsuit because I, being the sole judge of the presented facts and tactics of persuasion as presented by both sides in this dispute, side with Mr. Dale more so than with TREB and CREA for the following reason (sIn my mind (according to how I personally see things in my own biased mind (I am human after all) from my own psychological / political perspective re how I want to apply the wording of the law in this particular case), Mr. Dale has the «legal» right to continue with his lawsuit because I, being the sole judge of the presented facts and tactics of persuasion as presented by both sides in this dispute, side with Mr. Dale more so than with TREB and CREA for the following reason (sin my own biased mind (I am human after all) from my own psychological / political perspective re how I want to apply the wording of the law in this particular case), Mr. Dale has the «legal» right to continue with his lawsuit because I, being the sole judge of the presented facts and tactics of persuasion as presented by both sides in this dispute, side with Mr. Dale more so than with TREB and CREA for the following reason (sin this particular case), Mr. Dale has the «legal» right to continue with his lawsuit because I, being the sole judge of the presented facts and tactics of persuasion as presented by both sides in this dispute, side with Mr. Dale more so than with TREB and CREA for the following reason (sin this dispute, side with Mr. Dale more so than with TREB and CREA for the following reason (s):