During oral arguments,
several justices questioned whether the federal anti-corruption law — also used in the Skelos case — was too vague and being interpreted too broadly.
Not exact matches
So, the studio's biggest
question mark of the year will be November's
Justice League, which will bring together
several superheroes from that universe of films, including Wonder Woman as well as Batman and Superman.
Of special interest are statements by Bishop John Carroll of Baltimore on Catholic understandings of the American constitutional order, and
several documents from the hand of Bishop («Dagger John») Hughes of New York on sundry
questions, including an illuminating exchange with Bishop Patrick Lynch of Charleston on the
justice of the Union cause in the Civil War.
While the number of calls from David to JCOPE is not overwhelming, the timing of
several calls made 16 months ago raises
questions about the frequency of contact between the governor's office and the state's independent ethics panel, especially at a time when former aides and supporters of Cuomo were in the crosshairs of a U.S.
Justice Department investigation.
That court referred the case to the European Court of
Justice, asking it to decide
several questions, including what the E.U. law means when it refers to «human embryos,» and whether the ban also covers patents that don't involve embryos directly but where the use of embryos «is a necessary precondition» for the covered process or product.
Last March, through numerous state open records requests, E&E Legal uncovered emails showing that New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman formed a secret coalition of
several other states» attorneys general (AGs) and prominent green activists to use the criminal
justice system to target organizations that
question the climate change agenda under fraud and racketeering laws.
Those are among
several questions that appear to seek information on whether there was any obstruction of
justice, according to the New York Times, which obtained the list of more than 40
questions.
Justice Fish mentioned
several times that the complainant had in fact consented to the sexual activity in
question and had not revoked her consent (see e.g. paras. 97, 104, 108, 112).
In the Court of Appeal, the arguments became wider than in the tribunal or EAT, because of the intervention of the Equality and Human Rights Commission,
questioning the compatibility of the EAT decision with EC law and also focusing more clearly on the changes introduced in 2003 into the Equal Pay Act (s 2ZA) in the light of the ruling of the European Court of
Justice in Preston v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust [2000] IRLR 506 to cover the case of
several contracts forming part of a «stable employment relationship».
But Enrich did face
several skeptical policy - related
questions from
Justices Antonin Scalia, who asked whether taxes are political issues that should be decided by legislators, not courts, and David Souter, who
questioned whether tax incentives such as Ohio's are truly discriminatory.
Justice Brown reframed the
question to counsel
several times before finally hearing that TWU was seeking recognition of the «collective rights» of the Trinity Western religious community, balanced against equality «interests,» not rights, of LGBTQ2 students.