These services are typically court ordered as a child - focused alternative dispute resolution process in which a specialized professional with mediation training and experience assists high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan by assisting the parents in the resolution of their disputes, educating parents about children's needs, and with prior approval of the parties and / or the court, and in some states making decisions within
the scope of the court order or appointment contract.
The Parenting Coordinator facilitates resolution of disputes, educates parents about children's needs, monitors parental behavior and, with prior approval of the parents and / or the court, makes temporary decisions within
the scope of the court order or appointment contract.
With prior approval of the parties and / or the Court, the PC may make temporary decisions, within
the scope of the court order or appointment contract, to help high - conflict parents who have demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to make parenting decisions on their own.
With prior approval of the parties and / or the Court, the PC may have the authority to make limited decisions, within
the scope of the court order, to assist high - conflict parents who have demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to make parenting decisions on their own.
These decisions must be within
the scope of the court order or appointment contract.
Not exact matches
While Jesner suggests that five justices likely would rule that the federal
courts should not recognize an ATS cause
of action against American corporations for their overseas activities, several federal appeals
courts have exhibited little willingness to limit the
scope of ATS liability unless directly
ordered to do so by the Supreme
Court.
In these circumstances the
Court decided to refer the following questions for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU: 1) whether for the purposes
of Art. 2 (2)(c), Member States can require the direct descendant who is older than 21 years to have tried, without success, to obtain employment in the country
of origin in
order to be regarded as «dependant» and fall within the
scope of the provision; and 2) whether in interpreting the term «dependant» any significance should be attached to the fact that the family member is, due to the personal circumstances such as age, education and health, deemed to obtain employment in the host Member State, which would mean that the conditions
of dependence will no longer be met.
As it had done in Front Polisario, the
Court relied on the customary rules
of treaty interpretation reflected in the Vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties (VCLT) in
order to interpret the agreements» provisions on territorial
scope.
The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability
of a Alaska injunction: (a) are the terms
of the
order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the
order limited in its
scope and did the originating
court retain the power to issue further
orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the
order; and (f) will the use
of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.
In Upjohn Co. v. United States, 6 the United States Supreme
Court held that a company's attorney — client privilege extends to company counsel's communications with employees in certain prescribed circumstances.7 Rather than providing a simple objective test, the Upjohn court instead established five factors to guide courts in determining whether the company's privilege should extend to counsel's communications with its employees: (1) whether the communications were made by employees at the direction of superior officers of the company for the purpose of obtaining legal advice; (2) whether the communications contained information necessary for counsel to render legal advice, which was not otherwise available from «control group» management; (3) whether the matters communicated were within the scope of the employee's corporate duties; (4) whether the employee knew that the communications were for the purpose of the company obtaining legal advice; and (5) whether the communications were ordered to be kept confidential by the employee's superiors, including that the communications were considered confidential at the time and kept confidential subsequent to the interview.8 When these elements are established, courts generally consider communications between company counsel and an employee to be within the scope of the company's attorney — client privil
Court held that a company's attorney — client privilege extends to company counsel's communications with employees in certain prescribed circumstances.7 Rather than providing a simple objective test, the Upjohn
court instead established five factors to guide courts in determining whether the company's privilege should extend to counsel's communications with its employees: (1) whether the communications were made by employees at the direction of superior officers of the company for the purpose of obtaining legal advice; (2) whether the communications contained information necessary for counsel to render legal advice, which was not otherwise available from «control group» management; (3) whether the matters communicated were within the scope of the employee's corporate duties; (4) whether the employee knew that the communications were for the purpose of the company obtaining legal advice; and (5) whether the communications were ordered to be kept confidential by the employee's superiors, including that the communications were considered confidential at the time and kept confidential subsequent to the interview.8 When these elements are established, courts generally consider communications between company counsel and an employee to be within the scope of the company's attorney — client privil
court instead established five factors to guide
courts in determining whether the company's privilege should extend to counsel's communications with its employees: (1) whether the communications were made by employees at the direction
of superior officers
of the company for the purpose
of obtaining legal advice; (2) whether the communications contained information necessary for counsel to render legal advice, which was not otherwise available from «control group» management; (3) whether the matters communicated were within the
scope of the employee's corporate duties; (4) whether the employee knew that the communications were for the purpose
of the company obtaining legal advice; and (5) whether the communications were
ordered to be kept confidential by the employee's superiors, including that the communications were considered confidential at the time and kept confidential subsequent to the interview.8 When these elements are established,
courts generally consider communications between company counsel and an employee to be within the
scope of the company's attorney — client privilege.9
Third, the referring
court asked whether a rebate scheme must generate probable and / or appreciable exclusionary effects in
order for it to fall within the
scope of Article 102 TFEU.
The
Court of Appeal stated that while an appropriate case may give rise to important issues such as privacy, solicitor - client privilege, expense, and time, this was not that case as Mr. Justice Myers»
order was
of narrow
scope.
On the other hand, if such legislation falls within the
scope of European Union law, the
Court, when requested to give a preliminary ruling, must provide all the guidance as to interpretation needed in order for the national court to determine whether that legislation is compatible with the fundamental rights the observance of which the Court ensures» (para.
Court, when requested to give a preliminary ruling, must provide all the guidance as to interpretation needed in
order for the national
court to determine whether that legislation is compatible with the fundamental rights the observance of which the Court ensures» (para.
court to determine whether that legislation is compatible with the fundamental rights the observance
of which the
Court ensures» (para.
Court ensures» (para. 19).
There is plenty
of scope for argument before such an
order is made and argument there will be as the
court must be satisfied that it is necessary to secure compliance with the contact
order and that its likely effect is proportionate to the seriousness
of the breach.
On the other hand, if national legislation falls within the
scope of EU law, the
Court, when requested to give a preliminary ruling, must provide all the guidance as to interpretation needed in order for the national court to determine whether that legislation is compatible with the fundamental rights the observance of which the Court ensures (see, inter alia, Case C ‑ 617 / 10 Åkerberg Fransson [2013] ECR I ‑ 0000, paragraph 19 and the case - law ci
Court, when requested to give a preliminary ruling, must provide all the guidance as to interpretation needed in
order for the national
court to determine whether that legislation is compatible with the fundamental rights the observance of which the Court ensures (see, inter alia, Case C ‑ 617 / 10 Åkerberg Fransson [2013] ECR I ‑ 0000, paragraph 19 and the case - law ci
court to determine whether that legislation is compatible with the fundamental rights the observance
of which the
Court ensures (see, inter alia, Case C ‑ 617 / 10 Åkerberg Fransson [2013] ECR I ‑ 0000, paragraph 19 and the case - law ci
Court ensures (see, inter alia, Case C ‑ 617 / 10 Åkerberg Fransson [2013] ECR I ‑ 0000, paragraph 19 and the case - law cited).
Much
of the basis for the
court decisions on the Executive
Order was the wide
scope and general language
of the
Order.
The Ontario Superior
Court of Justice refused to give the
order based on the notion that the request was overly broad, and encouraged counsel to try to agree on the
scope of material that would be relevant.
The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability
of a Georgia injunction: (a) are the terms
of the
order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the
order limited in its
scope and did the originating
court retain the power to issue further
orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the
order; and (f) will the use
of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.
Documents produced are not to be used by the other party (ies) except for the purposes
of this litigation unless and until the
scope of the undertaking is varied by a
court order or other judicial
order, consent or statutory override or a situation
of immediate and serious danger emerges.
AG Bobek further points out, and thereby strengthening his arguments to limit the possible places
of jurisdiction to two, that if 28
courts in as many Member States could be competent to hear the case for the respective damage caused in these Member States, all these
courts could also
order injunctions, which would most likely differ in nature and
scope, and might, even worse, be contradictory (para. 130).
The
scope of the injunction might therefore be conditional on the type
of ISS, and the
court ordering such injunction would have to assess whether appropriate measures do exist.
Moreover, the limited
scope of the Act has also squeezed the power
of the
court to pass interim
order where the arbitration is taking place outside Bangladesh, even if it is imperative to secure the interest
of the claimant
of the Arbitration proceeding.
It held that the rights
of the defence, among which the right to be heard, were among the «fundamental rights that form an integral part
of the European Union legal
order» and that «where national legislation comes within the
scope of European Union law» the
Court was to provide all the criteria
of interpretation required by national
courts to determine the compatibility
of national law with fundamental rights (para 28).
The ruling is interesting, as it is perhaps indicative
of a relaxed, rather pragmatic, approach to the politically thorny question
of the CFSP's
scope, as well as revealing
of a principled effort by the
Court to further embed the CFSP into the EU legal
order.
Parenting coordination provides an alternative dispute resolution process whereby an impartial third person called a parenting coordinator assists the parties in developing or implementing their parenting plan by facilitating the resolution
of disputes in high conflict cases, providing education and making recommendations to the parties, and, with the prior consent
of the parties and approval
of the
court, making limited decisions within the
scope of the
order of referral.
The common understanding was that in
order to protect employees,
courts would consider termination provisions that failed to reference the full
scope of the employee's entitlements (including the continuation
of benefits) to be unenforceable and instead grant common law notice
of dismissal.
The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability
of a Tennessee injunction: (a) are the terms
of the
order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the
order limited in its
scope and did the originating
court retain the power to issue further
orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the
order; and (f) will the use
of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.
The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability
of a Missouri injunction: (a) are the terms
of the
order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the
order limited in its
scope and did the originating
court retain the power to issue further
orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the
order; and (f) will the use
of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.
The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability
of a California injunction: (a) are the terms
of the
order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the
order limited in its
scope and did the originating
court retain the power to issue further
orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the
order; and (f) will the use
of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.
In the absence
of clear statutory authority for police to obtain subscriber information (and other personal information) without a warrant, the term «lawful authority» has been fraught with conflicting interpretations, with some TSPs taking the position that it means a warrant or
court order, and with
courts struggling to determine its
scope.
Differently than the procedure for preliminary rulings before the CJEU, which allows the latter
Court to use a wider margin
of appreciation when it assesses the admissibility
of the referring
order and to rephrase its
scope and content in the light
of EU law (as it did with the request from the Tribunale di Cuneo that started the Taricco saga), the ICC is more strictly bound by the correspondence between such
order and the final ruling.
Limited preliminary inquiry (1.1) If the prosecutor and the accused agree under section 536.5 to limit the
scope of a preliminary inquiry to specific issues, the justice, without recording evidence on any other issues, may
order the accused to stand trial in the
court having criminal jurisdiction.
The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability
of a North Carolina injunction: (a) are the terms
of the
order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the
order limited in its
scope and did the originating
court retain the power to issue further
orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the
order; and (f) will the use
of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.
In such cases,
courts and arbitral tribunals are likely to scrutinise the contracts carefully in
order to determine the
scope of the arbitration agreement (in Trust Risk Group SpA v AmTrust Europe Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 437, the argument was unsuccessful; in C v D1, D2 and D3 [2015] EWHC 2126 (Comm), the argument was successful).
While Jesner suggests that five justices likely would rule that the federal
courts should not recognize an ATS cause
of action against American corporations for their overseas activities, several federal appeals
courts have exhibited little willingness to limit the
scope of ATS liability unless directly
ordered to do so by the Supreme
Court.
With the result from the US action, Google can re-apply to the Canadian
courts to attempt to modify the
scope of their original
order or simply de-index in Canada alone by relying on the US
order as a sort
of middle - ground approach.
A Parenting Coordinator shall serve by agreement
of the parties or formal
order of the
court, which shall clearly and specifically define the Parenting Coordinator's
scope of authority and responsibilities.
The territorial
scope of a restrictive covenant must be considered carefully because, as noted by the Supreme
Court in Guay, «[a] non-competition clause that applies outside the territory in which the business operates is contrary to public
order.»
Ittihadieh v 5 - 11 Cheyne Gardens RTM Co Ltd / Deer v University
of Oxford [2017] EWCA Civ 121, [2017] 3 WLR 811 Cases concerning the
scope of the definition
of «personal data» in s. 1 DPA; who is a «data controller»; what constitutes a subject access request; whether the duty to comply with a SAR is limited to a duty to carry out a reasonable and proportionate search; the extent
of the exemption from data protection duties for data processed for the purposes
of personal, family or household affairs; and the extent
of the
court's discretion to
order a data controller to comply with a SAR.
An LSPO may provide for amounts to be payable in instalments or by way
of a lump sum, perhaps with an interim
order for sale, and the
court has considerable flexibility over the
scope / nature
of the legal services to be covered and the duration
of the
order.
The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability
of a foreign injunction: (a) are the terms
of the
order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the
order limited in its
scope and did the originating
court retain the power to issue further
orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the
order; and (f) will the use
of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.
It defines the
scope of jurisdiction for both the Supreme
Court and Provincial Court and provides authority for the court to make orders respecting procedural mat
Court and Provincial
Court and provides authority for the court to make orders respecting procedural mat
Court and provides authority for the
court to make orders respecting procedural mat
court to make
orders respecting procedural matters.
Their reaction can be a refusal to give effect to an act
of the IO, following a finding that the act was outside the
scope of authority
of the IO -LSB-...] or incompatible with another set
of norms, be it international norms (such as a jus cogens norm or a human rights norm) or a norm
of the domestic legal
order that has precedence over the act
of the IO (such as the practice
of the German constitutional
court in the cases involving judgments
of The ECJ and the EctHR).»
Comment: Several commenters asked that the «minimum necessary» standard not apply to disclosures made pursuant to a
court order because individuals could then use the rule to contest the
scope of discovery requests.
The
court in BAE Systems also substantially cut down the
scope of the disclosure originally requested when it made its
order: fishing for more information than is absolutely necessary will not be allowed.
Some practical points about the operation
of such
orders are worth considering: - The
scope of the disclosure which will be permitted by the
court is strictly limited.
[3] On the basis
of the applicant's cassation appeal with the Supreme Administrative
Court by
order dated 9.5.2012, No. 6 Ads 18/2012 -82, reversed in accordance with Article 267
of the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union concerning the interpretation
of European Union law on the
Court and presented him the following questions: 6 Ads 18/2012 First Excludes Council Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 on the application
of social security schemes nazaměstna not persons and their families moving within the Community (Regulation
of the European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination
of social security systems), from its
scope ratione personae citizen
of the Czech Republic, which, in circumstances such as those in the present case, before 1 First 1993 subject to the laws governing pension defunct State (Czech and Slovak Federal Republic), Acting in accordance with these periods sčlánkem 20
of the Treaty concluded on the 29th 10th 1992 between the Czech and Slovak republikouo Social Security registered in Annex III
of Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 (Annex II
of the European Parliament and Council Regulation No 883/2004) are regarded as periods Slovak Republic apodlevnitrostátního rules created by the Constitutional
Court of the Czech Republic at the same time as the time Czech Republic?
The draft response
of the New South Wales Government foreshadows a desire to extend the current
scope of the ACPP to cover all placements
of Indigenous children and not just those following a
court order, and to articulate more clearly the circumstances in which discretion is exercised not to apply the ACPP.
While negotiations aimed at identifying the terms
of a consent determination are subject to the requirement that the
Court needs to be satisfied that it can make the
orders sought, there is sufficient
scope within the process to allow parties to focus their negotiations on determinations which facilitate this policy goal.
The Parenting Coordinator's role is on going, within the
scope of the particular
court order or stipulation.