Sentences with phrase «scope of the court order»

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 privilCourt 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 privilcourt 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 ciCourt, 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 cicourt 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 ciCourt 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 matCourt and Provincial Court and provides authority for the court to make orders respecting procedural matCourt and provides authority for the court to make orders respecting procedural matcourt 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.