Sentences with phrase «significant court opinions»

There is also a collection of significant court opinions relating to military commissions and of current and historical documents pertaining to the commissions.

Not exact matches

But the court in which these emails end up having the most significant consequences is the court of public opinion or in privately held evaluations.

In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two - part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: «First, the plaintiff must prove that «race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.»

It would be the most significant review by outsiders, and could therefore have a significant influence in the court of public opinion.

The U.S. Supreme Court's first major ruling in two decades on student speech was a decisive victory for schools and administrators in the case over a student's display of a «Bong Hits 4 Jesus» banner, but the nuances in the justices» opinions leave significant protection for more serious political and social expression by students.

If the new finding leads to a bona fide legal opinion in a court of law, it could have significant implications in broader climate - change talks because many REDD opponents fear such schemes could promote a land - grab that decimates tribes like the Suruí and others.

The question before the Court in this case was thus whether «that significant development of primary law» would make the Court change its views expressed in Opinion 1/94.

Although there is still much to anticipate over the last two months of this term, the Court has already issued opinions in several significant cases, including:

is designed to provide reporters, lawyers, educators, and the public with prompt, accurate, unbiased information about newsworthy and legally significant cases pending in and decided by the Federal Courts of Appeals... Use this Web site to find short summaries of recent opinions of public interest and noteworthy cases pending oral argument.

In addressing the employee's dishonesty, the Court noted that «there is a significant difference, particularly when considering cause for termination, between an employee being dishonest with an employer and an employee giving an opinion, even an overly optimistic opinion, that turns out to be wrong.»

«The Court emphasized that respect for the conditions of «living together» was a legitimate aim for the measure at issue and that, particularly as the State had a lot of room for manoeuvre («a wide margin of appreciation») as regards this general policy question on which there were significant differences of opinion, the ban imposed by the Law of 11 October 2010 did not breach the Convention.»

To sum up: a thought provoking judgment that unfortunately doesn't entirely live up to the promise that the «very specific questions from the referring court -LRB-...) provide an opportunity for the Court of Justice to clarify its most significant judgments on the matter in regard to Articles 6 (1), 22 (4) and 31 -LRB-...)» (Opinion AG Cruz - Villalon,court -LRB-...) provide an opportunity for the Court of Justice to clarify its most significant judgments on the matter in regard to Articles 6 (1), 22 (4) and 31 -LRB-...)» (Opinion AG Cruz - Villalon,Court of Justice to clarify its most significant judgments on the matter in regard to Articles 6 (1), 22 (4) and 31 -LRB-...)» (Opinion AG Cruz - Villalon, par.

«In an opinion released on May 13, 1997, this court sustained two of the plaintiff's assignments of error, finding: A review of the trial court's decision demonstrates that the trial court failed to address the fact that [the defendant] was awarded a significant property settlement of approximately 1.2 million dollars.

The opinion issued by the Court is one of the most significant decisions regarding the scope of international antirust conspiracies.

So far, only three published studies have analyzed the association between brief readability and case outcome, 50 and no studies have analyzed that association in the trial courts, where most lawyers practice.51 Long and Christensen sampled 882 appellate briefs from the Supreme Court, federal appellate courts, and state supreme courts.52 Their dependent variable was the outcome of the appeal (affirmed or reversed), while their independent variable was readability measured by the Flesch Reading Ease score as calculated by Microsoft Word.53 For federal appellate and state supreme court briefs, the researchers coded control variables for federal or state court, standard of review, presence of a dissenting opinion, and readability of the opinion deciding the appeal.54 For United States Supreme Court briefs, the researchers coded control variables for constitutional issue, criminal or civil case, presence of a dissenting opinion, and opinion readability.55 They found no statistically significant correlation between readability and outcome in the briefs in their stuCourt, federal appellate courts, and state supreme courts.52 Their dependent variable was the outcome of the appeal (affirmed or reversed), while their independent variable was readability measured by the Flesch Reading Ease score as calculated by Microsoft Word.53 For federal appellate and state supreme court briefs, the researchers coded control variables for federal or state court, standard of review, presence of a dissenting opinion, and readability of the opinion deciding the appeal.54 For United States Supreme Court briefs, the researchers coded control variables for constitutional issue, criminal or civil case, presence of a dissenting opinion, and opinion readability.55 They found no statistically significant correlation between readability and outcome in the briefs in their stucourt briefs, the researchers coded control variables for federal or state court, standard of review, presence of a dissenting opinion, and readability of the opinion deciding the appeal.54 For United States Supreme Court briefs, the researchers coded control variables for constitutional issue, criminal or civil case, presence of a dissenting opinion, and opinion readability.55 They found no statistically significant correlation between readability and outcome in the briefs in their stucourt, standard of review, presence of a dissenting opinion, and readability of the opinion deciding the appeal.54 For United States Supreme Court briefs, the researchers coded control variables for constitutional issue, criminal or civil case, presence of a dissenting opinion, and opinion readability.55 They found no statistically significant correlation between readability and outcome in the briefs in their stuCourt briefs, the researchers coded control variables for constitutional issue, criminal or civil case, presence of a dissenting opinion, and opinion readability.55 They found no statistically significant correlation between readability and outcome in the briefs in their study.56

In her dissenting opinion, Benotto found the Divisional Court had in fact identified «significant errors in principle in the discipline committee's reasons.»

66 They also used LIWC to measure plain language by calculating the inverse of the average words per sentence.67 Both were positively associated with the percentage of brief language adopted in the Court's opinion and the associations were highly significant.68 Our study builds on this multi-factor approach to measuring readability.

For example, Feldman analyzed the quality of Supreme Court merits briefs using a composite of features such as passivity, wordiness, sentence length, and tone.63 He found that brief readability was positively associated with the percentage of brief language adopted in the opinion and that the association was highly significant.64 Similarly, Collins et al. analyzed the «cognitive clarity» and plain language of Supreme Court amicus briefs.65 They measured cognitive clarity using the dictionary - based Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count program (LIWC), which relied on an index of categories that relate to cognitive clarity such as «causation, insight, discrepancy, inhibition, tentativeness, certainty, exclusiveness, inclusiveness, negations, and the percentage of words containing six or more letters.»

I just like fact that Gall does not involve crack and, more than that, I think the contrast between the district - court opinion and the CoA's treatment of the case is an excellent «vehicle» for the Court to decide whether to give district judges significant sentencing discrecourt opinion and the CoA's treatment of the case is an excellent «vehicle» for the Court to decide whether to give district judges significant sentencing discreCourt to decide whether to give district judges significant sentencing discretion.

This type of argument is much more effective when the opinion announcing the proposition is of significant precedential value — e.g., an announcement of legal principles by a higher (or highest) court.

Even absent any formal stare decisis norm, courts tend to preserve significant consistency in their opinions because of the persuasive value of past decisions, awareness of the costs of disrupting established programs, and the fact that courts are repeat decision makers.51 There is no reason to suppose the FISA courts would act differently.

One of the many proposals for FISA court reform involves a version of this requirement: Senate Bill 1467 would require the FISA courts to release any opinions containing a «significant construction or interpretation of law.»

Assuming the Advocate General's Opinion is followed by the Court of Justice, it will represent a significant victory for Mr Hampshire and hundreds of pensioners who have campaigned against the UK's pension compensation cap for over a decade.

On 26 July the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) issued Opinion 1/15, which is its most significant ruling on the international dimensions of data protection law since its 2015 judgment in the Schrems case.

In New York family courts, the opinions of experts are given significant weight.

(7) The court may, in forming an opinion for the purposes of subsection (5) as to whether there is likely to be a significant change in the financial circumstances of either or both of the parties to the de facto relationship, have regard to any change in the financial circumstances of a party to the de facto relationship that may occur by reason that the party to the de facto relationship:

but nothing in this subsection shall be taken to limit the circumstances in which the court may form the opinion that there is likely to be a significant change in the financial circumstances of a party to the marriage.

(7) The court may, in forming an opinion for the purposes of subsection (5) as to whether there is likely to be a significant change in the financial circumstances of either or both of the parties to the marriage, have regard to any change in the financial circumstances of a party to the marriage that may occur by reason that the party to the marriage: