Sentences with phrase «ruling narrowing the definition»

NEW YORK (AP)-- The second trial for New York's former assembly speaker is likely to be a repeat of a 2015 trial but with language that will conform to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling narrowing the definition of corruption.

The high court ruling narrowed the definition of a corrupt act.

Not exact matches

CNBC has obtained a copy of the letter where Chilton outlined the basis of the proposed rule which «would provide clear guidelines for market participants and would appropriately narrow the definition of «hedging» to conduct that is truly economically appropriate to risk reduction.»

In Tuesday's ruling, a three - judge appellate panel rejected Pauley's narrow definition of «repeat infringer» as only covering users who upload infringing content, rather than ones who downloaded songs for personal entertainment.

I am speaking generally, of course, but I think Christian women wrestle with these questions most of all, perhaps because in a religious culture that often puts forth narrow and contested definitions of womanhood, young women whose interests and personalities might lead them away from the list of acceptable rules and roles are subtly punished for not exhibiting a more «gentle and quiet spirit,» for not reigning in some of that ambition and drive.

Theologians influenced by positivism, whose adherents saw reality as strictly that which can be experienced through the senses and knowledge as that which can be obtained through a narrow definition of the scientific method, and linguistic analysis, which purported that the only proper function of philosophy is the study of the usage of words and sentences, also treated science and religion as separate realms, distinct «language games,» each with its own set of rules.

Initially scheduled to report to prison on July 1, Silver's appeal has gained some ground in recent weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of ex-Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell that narrowed the definition of an official quid pro quo in public corruption cases.

Reactions are rolling in to the surprise news this morning that a federal appeals court has overturned the 2015 corruption conviction of former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, based on a subsequent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, involving a former Republican governor of Virginia, that narrowed the definition of what kind of official conduct is prosecutable.

In October, the High Court ruled that this narrower definition had led to torture survivors being wrongfully detained.

But Silver was saved by none other than the U.S. Supreme Court, which paved the way for the former Assembly Speaker's appeal with a 2016 ruling that narrowed the definition of what constituted official corruption.

The Skeloses» lawyers challenged the jury's findings following the McDonnell ruling, which narrowed the definition of official corruption.

The case, now being deliberated by a jury, is one of the first major public corruption trials in New York since a landmark 2016 Supreme Court ruling significantly narrowed the definition of what actually constitutes public corruption.

In its ruling, the high court narrowed the definition of what constitutes an «official act» by a politician, making it more difficult for prosecutors to obtain convictions in cases in which it can not be made clear to jurors exactly what a politician did in return for money or services received from someone or an entity hoping to improperly influence government.

The decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was sparked by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, whose conviction was overturned by the nation's highest court in a ruling that narrowed the definition of the types of official acts that could be considered as part of quid pro quo arrangements.

Both times, the court cited a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of Republican former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell that narrowed the definition of a corrupt act by a public official.

The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan overturned Silver's 2015 conviction in a ruling that cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that narrowed the definition of bribery.

The Silver trial is expected to last about a month and is likely to be largely a repeat of the first one, tailored slightly to conform to a June 2016 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that narrowed the definition of a corrupt act.

Lawyers for former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver asked a three - judge panel to reverse his corruption conviction following a Supreme Court ruling last year narrowing the definition of public graft.

That ruling, reached six months after the Skeloses were convicted, significantly narrowed the definition of an «official act» as it applies to federal bribery statutes and found that, while the McDonnell case was «distasteful,» it did not rise to the level of public corruption.

Several of those federal prosecutions, though, have been troubled, especially after the Supreme Court issued rulings that narrowed the definition of public corruption.

In vacating his conviction, the appellate court cited a United States Supreme Court ruling that narrowed the definition of the kind of official conduct that can serve as the basis of a corruption prosecution.

Jurors found Silver guilty on all counts, but his conviction was overturned based on a US Supreme Court ruling last year that narrowed the definition of an «official act» in government bribery cases.

Both father and son were convicted during a first trial, but a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year narrowing the definition of an «official act» led to an appeals court vacating the conviction in September 2017.

A federal appeals court overturned the 2015 corruption conviction of Sheldon Silver, citing a United States Supreme Court ruling last year that narrowed the definition of the kind of official conduct that can serve as the basis of a corruption prosecution.

NEW YORK (AP)-- The corruption conviction of former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was overturned Thursday by a federal appeals court that cited a recent Supreme Court ruling that narrowed the definition of what it takes to convict a public official.

The three - judge panel pointed to a 2016 United States Supreme Court ruling on Republican governor of Virginia Bob McDonnell that used a more narrow definition of what constitutes an «official act» under the public corruption statute, ruling that a jury instructed on that definition may not have found Silver guilty.

His 2015 conviction was overturned by an appeals court due to a US Supreme Court's recent ruling that narrowed the definition of bribery.

Similarly, Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal merger under the Council Regulation on the control of concentrations between undertakings [2004] OJ C31 / 3, para 79 has a rule against aggregating across markets; and see the discussion in OFT, Article 101 (3)-- A Discussion of Narrow versus Broad Definition of Benefits: discussion note for an OFT breakfast roundtable (London, Office of Fair Trading, May 12, 2010), available at http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/events/roundtable-article101 (3) / paras. 2.4, 4.1 and A10).

Several of these commenters agreed that the Common Rule's definition should be adopted in the final rule, but argued that the proposed definition of «generalizable knowledge» within the definition of «research,» which limited generalizable knowledge to knowledge that is «related to health,» was too narRule's definition should be adopted in the final rule, but argued that the proposed definition of «generalizable knowledge» within the definition of «research,» which limited generalizable knowledge to knowledge that is «related to health,» was too narrule, but argued that the proposed definition of «generalizable knowledge» within the definition of «research,» which limited generalizable knowledge to knowledge that is «related to health,» was too narrow.

Additional commenters who argued that the definition was too narrow raised the following concerns: the difference between «research» and «health care operations» is irrelevant from the patients» perspective, and therefore, the proposed rule should have required documentation of approval by an IRB or privacy board before protected health information could be used or disclosed for either of these purposes, and the proposed definition was too limited because it did not capture research conducted by non-profit entities to ensure public health goals, such as disease - specific registries.

Even if it does pass such a rule, the commission's definition of election advertising is so narrow that many of the ads placed by the Russians may not have qualified for scrutiny.

The legislation narrows the definition of the term «creditor» for purposes of the Red Flag Rule.