Sentences with phrase «see in the court document»

Not exact matches

Heather Dietrick, Gawker's president and general counsel, says that the company's lawyers plan to review all of the documents released by the F.B.I. to see what Hogan told the F.B.I. during the extortion investigation and whether that matches the testimony he's given in his state court case again Gawker.

The town filed papers late Wednesday night in federal court in Central Islip in response to a motion by federal prosecutors, who said they are entitled to see the complete documents.

In court documents seen by the Mail on Sunday, Sarah Ferguson claims she was tricked by the former News of the World reporter, who was jailed last month, when she allegedly offered to introduce him to her former husband Prince Andrew for # 500,000.

«I have had a personal and professional relationship with Mr. Spitzer for several years, and have seen him socially several days before February 13, 2016,» he said in court documents.

In documents submitted to the high court, seen by the Guardian, it is argued that BeLeave was not a separate organisation to Vote Leave, but in effect acted as the campaign's youth winIn documents submitted to the high court, seen by the Guardian, it is argued that BeLeave was not a separate organisation to Vote Leave, but in effect acted as the campaign's youth winin effect acted as the campaign's youth wing.

In court documents obtained by PEOPLE, Hewitt claims that she saw Phillippe — whom she had been dating since April but split from in July Related StorieIn court documents obtained by PEOPLE, Hewitt claims that she saw Phillippe — whom she had been dating since April but split from in July Related Storiein July Related Stories.

See more details in the actual article here, but ultimately the Virginia Supreme Court concluded that the Richmond Circuit Court «erred in ordering the production of these documents containing teachers» identifiable information.»

In garnishments, not only might you have to appeal to the bankruptcy courts to see that the automatic stay is adhered to, you may have to contact the institution administering the garnishment with court documents to see to it the garnishments cease and / or monies returned.

Chase refunds $ 50 million in robo - signing settlement — Chase agreed to refund money and drop thousands of court judgments it won against cardholders in poorly documented lawsuits... (See Chase robo - signing settlement)

Prince is widely seen as having set his own case back by claiming in his 2009 verbal deposition (compiled as a book, Canal Zone Richard Prince YES RASTA: Selected Court Documents, & c., & c., by filmmaker / artist / writer Greg Allen) that «I don't really have a message» or any comment on the originals, which, Cariou's lawyers argued in this case, should be required for protection under fair use.

If you do any litigation in federal court, you are already locked into the deathless embrace of PACER to file your documents, see your opponent's filings, and conduct research.

I got through almost my entire law school education without actually seeing an entire contract (snippets in Supreme Court judgments don't count), a Notice of Civil Claim, or a land title document.

We still see a lot of «hereinafter», «thereto», «residing in» and the like, and while this may be perfectly acceptable if you are preparing court documents, it's not generally everyday language that people understand.

Email and fax are still actively used by participants in the justice system to circulate these documents, so the appearance of those document on websites (court, CanLII, news organizations or other) merely expands the accessibility and contributes to the probability that it will be seen by someone without a direct connection to a party without direct access to the original.

From seeing a lot of decision documents in my career, I can guarantee you that this is not the current practice in Canadian courts.

Ian Gallacher considered this question in his study of readability scores of briefs filed in New York's highest court from 1969 to 2008.244 Gallacher's study «was designed to reveal if the effects of systematic legal - writing instruction in law schools could be seen in documents written by lawyers.»

These were to address one or more of eight issues seen as important to courts: form - filling — making court documents more accessible to litigants in person; order drafting — creating orders that are more likely to be accepted by courts; continuous online hearing — challenging the question of whether a court is a place or a service; argument - building — to aid non-lawyers in creating well - structured arguments, distinguishing fact from law; outcome prediction — using technology to answer the natural question «what are my chances of winning?»

Of course, if we include government documents in GL, I'll bet there is a fairly consistent appearance of this class of material in the courts in the forms of royal commission reports, law reform reports (See Michel - Adrien's post), and other authoritative sources of legal thinking.

The Court of Appeal in Imerman therefore seems to be suggesting that if wives discover documentation, they are to rely upon their memory of the documents seen or embark upon a course of action well after the horse has bolted which could prove prohibitively expensive, and which has previously been judged «oppressive» and «a rare weapon for use in extreme or exceptional circumstances» (Burgess v Burgess).

The Court of Appeal also suggested that in the event a wife sees a «confidential» document relating to her husband's finances, she could rely on her memory of the contents of the document (but not the document itself); but how much is a wife supposed to remember?

People don't generally take kindly to seeing claims like that reduced to writing in public court documents, whether they're true or not, and tend to fight fire with fire.

This applies both where that advice is limited in time, eg until after a criminal defence statement has been filed and served and, worse still, the advice is given not to make such a response at all; • (f) the date on which a party to care proceedings is to file and serve a criminal defence statement in linked criminal proceedings is wholly irrelevant to the court's determination of the date on which that party should file and serve a response to threshold and / or to file and serve a narrative statement in the care proceedings; • (g) the mere fact that a party is ordered to file and serve a response to threshold and / or to file and serve a narrative statement before the date a criminal defence statement is to be filed and served in criminal proceedings is not a ground for failing to comply with the former order; • (h) it [is not] a ground for an application to extend the time for compliance with an order to file and serve a response to threshold and / or to file and serve a narrative statement until a date after the criminal defence statement has been filed and served; and • (i) any issue about alleged prejudice to a defendant in criminal proceedings based on him being required to file and serve a response to threshold and / or to file and serve a narrative statement before the date of a criminal defence statement is to be filed and served, or at all, only arises and is only potentially relevant if and when an application is made by the police and / or a co-accused for statements and documents filed in the family proceedings to be disclosed into linked criminal proceedings [see Re C (A Minor)(Care Proceedings: Disclosure)[1997] Fam 76, [1997] 2 WLR 322, sub nom Re EC (Disclosure of Material)[1996] 2 FLR 725, CA].

This is the equivalent of both being able to fast forward and see how the parties will behave under the agreement, and asking the Supreme Court to cogitate and interpret the contract while you are drafting it (and to be able to do it every time a change is made in the document).

No formal requests as in traditional discovery (see Discovery) where the party seeking information must draft and serve specific requests for information and documents using particular forms following court rules.

Implied undertakings concerning documents are a recognized part of court proceedings in British Columbia, and the court has recently implied, in the context of an HPRB review, that implied undertakings form part of tribunal proceedings in BC: see R.M.

The fact that we are trial lawyers makes us better transactional lawyers because we have seen how and why transactional documents end up in court, and we can use that unique perspective to draft better documents to minimize future disputes.

But the Supreme Court, which will see this document in the event of a petition?

Presented well in a demand letter with documented damages, including special damages, general damages for emotional distress (real not imagined), and attorneys fees (see Brandt v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.

Given that the judges want electronic documents (see, for example the Court of Appeal Practice Direction Concerning Civil Appeals in the Court of Appeal, at s. 10.7 «Use of Technology»), I agree there really should be an easier way to do this.

It is pretty pathetic to see a company such as Apple trying to reduce competition by falsifying documents and presenting that in court.

If it is not codified in a civil document, New Jersey courts see it as blurring the line between State and Synagogue / Church, because then they are requiring a party to be involved with a religious process.

Mr Custody Coach can help you recognize alienation, give you a solid plan for helping your child see the truth without destroying them or the other parent, and help you document alienation attempts for use in court to win custody of your child.

The fact that we are trial lawyers makes us better transactional lawyers because we have seen how and why transactional documents end up in court, and we can use that unique perspective to draft better documents to minimize future disputes.

While much of the process to purchase a bankruptcy property can be similar to a standard sale, you may see some court - ordered language in the sale documents.

Finally, the court looked to see whether the work product protection applied to the documents in question.

You can search the court documents on the home owners to see if the house was included in the criminal indictment.