Sentences with phrase «saying the courts retained»

This very aspect of the bill drove lords to vote against the government earlier this month, when it emerged Grayling had misled the Commons by saying the courts retained discretion in exceptional circumstances.

Not exact matches

The source says this is the beginning of a «sustained full - court press» by the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee to retain the seat.

The two GOP lawmakers said they gearing up to take the city to court to force it to retain the documents.

Remember that in the case of the requirement of «prior approval» by Parliament, the Supreme Court said in Mensah versus Attorney - General that Parliament had to respect the language and act accordingly and not just retain Ministers of the previous government because that was not what «prior approval» meant.

Delivering judgment along with Mr Justice Holgate, Lord Justice Singh said Part 4 was incompatible with fundamental rights in EU law because «access to retained data is not limited to the purpose of combating «serious crime»» and «access to retained data is not subject to prior review by a court or an independent administrative body».

If a law firm is retained in a case involving multiple actions, it is not obligated to represent the client in all of the actions in order to get paid for the work it performed, says the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

What happens is the court asks will he retain counsel or represent himself, effectively taking away the right to public counsel, at which point he says he will try to get counsel.

«Individuals who are alleged to be in contempt of the court order are entitled to the time to retain counsel, to instruct counsel, to consider their options, to receive disclosure and to have proper notice,» MacKay said in court.

«Justice Labrosse found that the Superior Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain this claim, but that was not self - evident on the face of the statement of claim, so the issue required adjudication by the court,» said Stephen Cavanagh of Cavanagh LLP, an Ottawa firm retained by the insurer of Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain this claim, but that was not self - evident on the face of the statement of claim, so the issue required adjudication by the court,» said Stephen Cavanagh of Cavanagh LLP, an Ottawa firm retained by the insurer of court,» said Stephen Cavanagh of Cavanagh LLP, an Ottawa firm retained by the insurer of KISS.

-- 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.

Having held that the provision «provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated» of Item 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the Constitutional Court will not further investigate whether 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 this law 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 persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren who reside in other states, provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of justice.

The court rules the documents must be disclosed to said defendant's lawyers and the experts retained but not to the non-shareholder defendant or its representatives unless authorized by the court.

The Court of Appeal did not go so far as to say an appellate court would be required to grant permission to intervene where, absent a demonstrable error, status was granted in the court below — the Court of Appeal retains jurisdiction to control its own proceCourt of Appeal did not go so far as to say an appellate court would be required to grant permission to intervene where, absent a demonstrable error, status was granted in the court below — the Court of Appeal retains jurisdiction to control its own procecourt would be required to grant permission to intervene where, absent a demonstrable error, status was granted in the court below — the Court of Appeal retains jurisdiction to control its own procecourt below — the Court of Appeal retains jurisdiction to control its own proceCourt of Appeal retains jurisdiction to control its own procedure.

34 Although the court cited Wikipedia as claiming it ««retains a history of all edits and changes,»» the court said that, even assuming the previous entry could be retrieved, «we would be unable to consider this fact on appeal in the absence of a firm basis in the record for concluding that the Wikipedia archives themselves are accurate and trustworthy.»

The Court essentially said that when a plaintiff sues multiple defendants, each defendant has a right to call his or her own witness in any relevant discipline, though ultimately the trial court retains discretion under KRE 403 to exclude testimony that would result in undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidCourt essentially said that when a plaintiff sues multiple defendants, each defendant has a right to call his or her own witness in any relevant discipline, though ultimately the trial court retains discretion under KRE 403 to exclude testimony that would result in undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidcourt retains discretion under KRE 403 to exclude testimony that would result in undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

In examining its jurisdiction with regards to the sale of the property in Portugal, the Court in Macedo conceded that it did not have the power to vest title of the property in the wife, but found that it had jurisdiction in personam over the husband and could order the husband to sell the property in Portugal, or, alternatively, the husband could pay the wife for her share of the property minus his interest in the Canadian property: Having said this, the court is satisfied that it retains jurisdiction in personam against the Respondent in this jurisdicCourt in Macedo conceded that it did not have the power to vest title of the property in the wife, but found that it had jurisdiction in personam over the husband and could order the husband to sell the property in Portugal, or, alternatively, the husband could pay the wife for her share of the property minus his interest in the Canadian property: Having said this, the court is satisfied that it retains jurisdiction in personam against the Respondent in this jurisdiccourt is satisfied that it retains jurisdiction in personam against the Respondent in this jurisdiction.

«If retained, Chief Justice Castille vows ethics push»: In today's edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Craig R. McCoy has a front page article that begins, «Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said Wednesday that if reelected next week, he would push to ban judges from hiring relatives or hearing cases brought by lawyers who have made substantial contributions to their campaigns.»

There is to date no supranational European system for patent litigation, so the courts of each EPC Contracting State retain the final say.

The lower court held that the sellers were entitled to keep the deposit, citing the agreement, which said, «If the buyer shall fail to fulfill the buyer's agreements herein, all deposits made hereunder by the buyer shall be retained by the seller as liquidated damages.»