Sentences with phrase «so as a trial judge»

Not exact matches

As at his arrest and interrogation before the high priest, so again at this Roman trial, Jesus displayed his divine nature more authoritative and in command of himself than Roman judge.

The Huffington Post quoted one of its own writers, Kim Simon, in expressing her trials and tribulations, first as a mom who couldn't produce breast milk and was shamed by other parents, then as a breastfeeding - only mom who was judged when doing so in public.

If you are interested in participating in a clinical trial, it is important that you take the time to learn as much as you can about the study so that you may judge for yourself whether the trial is right for your individual situation.

You should then run the trial a couple of times, so that every student participates at least once as either judge, jury, prosecution, or defense.

We can't always avoid doing things which cause grip problems, but as we all know, grips are judged in trials, and they should be judged in training as well, so we better make sure we help the dogs get back to where they work as well as they can.

But federal judges have so far upheld the plaintiffs» right to a hearing, which means the case could come to trial as early as November.

When I began my own career as a district court judge, I made it a point to meet with every jury in any case I tried so that I could answer their questions and get their impressions on the trial process and their role as a jury.

If you're prepared to presume, absent something relevant to the contrary, the validity of what amounts to an unexplained jury decision so long as the relevant evidence is capable of supporting that decision, what's the basis for your problem with what the trial judge did here (assuming you have a problem)?

In the case of R. v. Downey, the trial judge found that the accused's suspicion had been aroused to the point that there was a need for inquiry, but she deliberately did not inquire so as not to learn the truth.

Furthermore the Court of Appeal was of the view on the issue of credibility that it was not open to the trial judge to discount the claimant's reports to doctors as exaggeration because of his account of the accident unless the judge concluded the claimant was not so informed, a finding that the judge did not make and an issue he did not address.

The claim had not been compromised as the judge had stated and so the judge had not been bound by BCT Software Solutions Ltd v C Brewer & Sons Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 393, [2003] All ER (D) 196 (Jul)-- where parties have settled on all issues save costs before a trial or where a trial is incomplete, the court should not, save in a reasonably obvious case, embark on making an order for costs because the court will have no proper basis of agreed or determined facts upon which to base its decision.

There's no need for anybody to be concerned that Ontario courts will ever be unclogged so long as each attempt by the Rules Committee to produce a mechanism for summary disposition of actions is frustrated by those judges who find issues warranting trials lurking under every rock.

4.Re - define hearings so as to allocate more time for judges to review material and less time for oral hearings in interlocutory matters, and hybrid rather than conventional trials;

On the other hand, if all of the evidence admissibility issues had been sorted out before trial by motion in writing — the US system — and all of the witnesses that either side knew they might call had been available for pretrial deposition and everybody conceivably important had been examined - again the American system — then perhaps your trial and all of the other trials wouldn't have been as long, or have been resolved for whatever reason because the lawyers knew what the evidence would likely be, so there'd have been judges... etc..

In Colorado, U.S. District Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch was so infuriated by the trial conduct of counsel for Medtronic Navigation Inc. that he had already overturned a jury's $ 51 million verdict in its favor, as The Denver Post reports.

At trial, the judge considered the relevant and applicable statutory duties and obligations of the Plaintiff, as a pedestrian, under the Motor Vehicle Act, but did not do so for the driver.

The court in Basandra cautioned counsel to properly structure jury questions so as to allow the trial judge to adequately allocate the deductions.

Before calling for a change so fundamental as to delete the dishonesty element in order to secure some convictions, what is urgently needed is that the OFT gains some experience of prosecuting a contested trial and that there is some «road - testing» of the offence by a judge and jury.

C.A., Feb. 22, 2012)(34720) Jan. 24, 2013 Whether to self - instruct by a trial judge is discretionary, and there is no requirement to do so as a matter of law.

The trial judge failed to give the necessary explanations to Mr. Watterson, on the basis that doing so would be giving him advice as to how to conduct his trial.

So it comes to Michelle and I via the fact that there's been a trial and the committee needs to review the determination by that judge as to what discipline is appropriate.

The trial judge interpreted the defects exclusion so as to only exclude those costs of repair that would have remedied the defect immediately prior to the occurrence of the damage, and based on the evidence the costs of implementing proper shoring / framework procedures were nil.

... It does require that the trial judge treat the litigant fairly and attempt to accommodate the unrepresented litigants» unfamiliarity with the process so as to permit them to present their case.»

The trial judge reasoned that 25 % of the time was spent on the assets in India, and the husband was successful on that issue (as the assets were not ultimately valued), so should obtain a reduction.

So yes, the trial Judge has to make a leap and use common sense as opposed to scientific precision.

HB 1132 as amended and approved by the House provides that the trial judge will continue to determine, and even reject, such a disqualification motion and must do so within 63 days in a signed, written order.

The trial judge chose to deviate from the statutory formula to avoid what he perceived as an unfair result but he was required to explain his reasons for doing so in substantial detail.

So far as time is concerned the information was sufficient, without amendment, to permit the trial judge to consider the events of June 8 as well as those of June 3.»

And that is so notwithstanding rules of law relating to appeals (e.g., Housen v. Nikolaisen) that trial judges are entitled to deference as to facts, mixed fact and law, discretionary matters and so on.

As such, the Court of Appeal could not agree with the Appellants» argument that, in the circumstances of this case, the Trial Judge ought to have relaxed the causation test so as to permit a «common sense» analysis of the issuAs such, the Court of Appeal could not agree with the Appellants» argument that, in the circumstances of this case, the Trial Judge ought to have relaxed the causation test so as to permit a «common sense» analysis of the issuas to permit a «common sense» analysis of the issue.

All settlement discussions, including the opinions of the judge, are «off the record» so they can not be used as evidence if the case goes to trial.

In my view in all likelihood I know as much about the reasonableness of the claimant's actions, given the evidence that has been presented, as a trial judge would, and so I am able to rule conclusively on that issue.

Rule 30.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires that if surveillance is to be used as substantive evidence at trial, then counsel must give the opposite party notice of its intention to use the evidence, and the evidence itself must be produced to the opposite party at least 90 days before the commencement of trial.7 If counsel fails to do so, the Court will limit the use of that evidence to impeachment purposes only, except where a trial judge grants leave to use the evidence for substantive purposes.

In doing so, you voluntarily give up important constitutional rights to trial by judge or jury, as well as rights to appeal.

Earlier in the Samsung trial, Apple argued that the Motorola - related case information be excluded — Judge Koh agreed and, so, neither Apple nor Samsung presented evidence relating to the Judge Posner claim construction of the» 647 patent (a key to the divergent construction seems to be that a separate thing, called an «analyzer server,» is required as a go - between for the recognizable link and the related functionality).

In the case before me there is an affidavit from Dr. Reebye setting forth a basis for the examination sought, although ultimately what Dr. Reebye may regard as purely responsive may be different from that which the trial judge eventually concludes to be so.

The trial judge also found that, had Can - Am acted honestly, Mr. Bhasin could have «governed himself accordingly so as to retain the value in his agency».

The trial judge found that had Can - Am acted honestly, Mr. Bhasin could have governed himself accordingly so as to retain the value in his agency.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal could not accept granting a stay was in the best interests of B.A.S. as to do so would set aside the Trial Judge's detailed access plan and was likely to interrupt or «cut off» (as had occurred previously) the relationship between B.A.S. and his paternal grandparents.

Judges now routinely convene so - called Markman hearings, also known as claim construction hearings, before trial to help them in their task of claim construction, which is at the core of many patent disputes.

Alternatively, the Court of Appeal considered the possibility that the Trial Judge misspoke (as was suggested by Mr. Singh) and that she intended to find Mr. Singh had only intended to have the insurance on the truck cancelled — that when the leasing company terminated the lease, it did so wrongfully.

Accordingly, the Alberta Court of Appeal found no fault with the trial judge's determination Mr. Porter's TSA statement was provided on the basis of an honest and reasonably held belief he was required to do so (note: this is an important precondition for exclusion as per White).

R. v. James, 2014 SCC 5 (35373) Moldaver J.: ``... the trial judge's reliance on evidence that did not form part of the record may have coloured his thinking on the issue of consent, particularly in assessing whether the complainant may have consented to sexual relations but forgot that she had done so due to memory blackout, or, as she claimed, that she was unconscious at all material times and never consented to sexual relations.

Being as kind as possible to the reasoning, the Court adopts a «Goldilocks» approach: the amount of punitive damages awarded by the trial judge ($ 1,000,000) was «too high», the amount awarded by the Court of Appeal ($ 250,000) was too low because it «fails to fully reflect the gravity of the conduct and the need to deter others», so $ 500,000 is perfect.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that the trial judge had been correct to admit the report so far as it dealt with the facts, and correct to exclude it so far as it offered an expert opinion — though another expert could have given an opinion on the basis of the facts in the report.

While I suspect there will always be a need for authoritarian and perhaps adversarial court processes to address truly intractable individuals and problems of genuine urgency, I worry that a reconceptualization of the system may call for more than triage processes and the co-locatation of social services, both of which are reconfigurations of existing services, but may demand a fundamental reconsideration of our basic assumptions and a critically examination of alternatives such as inquisitorial processes, abridged trial procedures, non-adversarial judging techniques, the embedding of mental health professionals in decision - making processes and so forth.

As it seems that Canadian appellate and trial judge are too often willing to ignore semantic accuracy, in the interests of (so it is said) justice, and so prove Humpty Dumpty right, then why should we mere Canadian lawyers care?

This can not be compromised... It bears reiterating that the standard for fairness is not whether the procedure is as exhaustive as a trial, but whether it gives the judge confidence that she can find the necessary facts and apply the relevant legal principles so as to resolve the dispute.»

But, while the mediation of courts is based upon the principle of judicial impartiality, disinterestedness, and fairness pervading the whole system of judicature, so that courts may as near as possible be above suspicion, there is, on the other side, an important issue at stake: that is, that causes may not be unfairly prejudiced, unduly delayed, or discontent created through unfounded charges of prejudice or unfairness made against the judge in the trial of a cause...

In Reflections on Judging, Judge Posner retorts that «no one should be so naïve as to believe that the determination of facts by the familiar adversary process at trial is proof against error.»