Sentences with phrase «standard is against the law»

Driving without a current liability policy that meets the state minimum standard is against the law.

Not exact matches

Thus our laws against incest, bigamy and child marriage reflect the belief that marriage, as defined by the State, is to be judged in terms of another and higher standard.

That was the whole point — that one could be driven to revolutionary action by standards of justice that are higher than the law, and against which the law is judged.

But the idea that every human law is imperfect, and therefore unjust to some extent, does indeed make sense, because we can imagine a perfectly just judge who administers perfect justice» who assesses a person's talents, motives, opportunities, weaknesses, ideals, history, and everything else about him, and then judges all his actions against the standard of what he is able to do.

They thought He was betraying the righteous standards of the Law of Moses and going against all that they taught and practiced in their religion.

We stop misleading marketing by monitoring what baby feeding companies and retailers are doing against international marketing standards and national laws.

In some European nations, there are more equal gender laws concerning public nudity but those nations have LESS sexual assault and violence against women than in the United States - so there is no legal rationale for this double - standard - it's simply an unconstitutional tradition that has never been challenged in court by ACLU attorneys.

Russia felt betrayed, double standards were applied where the West would get a pass for not sticking to the letter of international law to defend its interests far outside its borders, while the West would throw the book at Russia even when dealing with outright military aggression (note that Georgia launched a large scale military attack against Russian forces in South Ossetia).

While this is not an unreasonably short standard compared to similar laws in New York or Germany, my research on administrative litigation in China (based on 178 interviews) suggests that this simple limitation derails more cases against the Chinese state than any other factor.

«Would you accept that the apparent diversion and sharing of the over $ 2 billion was largely due to your failure to ensure: (1) that system was in place to ensure a transparent and accountable spending of budget for military operations in strict accordance with the standards of international law including the UN Convention against Corruption; (2) that any such system was operating in a continuous and effective manner; and (3) that violations of the standards were punished when detected by that system?

Diane Ravitch, former assistant sectary of education, said the new set of education standards are socially irresponsible and likely against the law.

State law says Louisiana's 2014 - 15 exams must be «based on nationally recognized content standards» and scored against national norms, and that Common Core and the consortium's test fit the bill.

The Republican revolt against the Common Core can be traced to President Obama's embrace of it, particularly his linking the adoption of similar standards to states» eligibility for federal education grants and to waivers from No Child Left Behind, the national education law enacted by President George W. Bush.

The Constitution and By - Laws or the Standard for the breed may be amended at any time, provided that a copy of any proposed amendment has been mailed by the Corresponding Secretary to each member in good standing as of the date of mailing, accompanied by a ballot on which the member shall indicate a choice for or against the action to be taken.

The Constitution and By - Laws and the Standard for the Breed may be amended at any time provided a copy of the proposed amendment has been mailed by the Recording Secretary to each member in good standing on the date of the mailing, accompanied by a ballot on which he may indicate his choice for or against the actions to be taken.

More recently, the IPA has been the driving force behind the establishment of a number of new non-profit front groups, including the Australian Environment Foundation - which campaigns for weaker environmental laws - Independent Contractors of Australia - which campaigns for an end to workplace safety laws and a general deregulation of the labour market, and the ironically named Owner Drivers Australia, which campaigns against safety and work standard for truck drivers.

Furthermore, the SCC found that the primacy of EU law does not go against the supremacy of the Constitution; once the EU legal order is accepted into the Spanish system, and within the competences attributed to the EU, «the Constitution is not the standard of validity of Community law, but the Treaty itself», and the SCC may not generally control the legality of EU secondary law.

Hence, for the «good of the firm» partners in many of the more financially and professionally successful law firms have identified and defined standards against which partner performance will be determined.

If you have been injured in a trucking accident due to the driver failing to follow safety standards, call Haddad Law Firm today and let us help you fight back against these massive companies and their colossal trucks and vehicles to get the compensation you deserve.

In Case C - 170 / 13 Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v ZTE Corp & ZTE Deutschland GmbH, (Judgment of the 5th Chamber, CJEU, 16 July 2015) the CJEU was asked to rule for the first time on whether seeking an injunction and other associated remedies by the owner of a Standard Essential Patent (SEP) against a company in breach of the patent (but one willing to become a licensee) can amount to an abuse of a dominant position in breach of EU competition law (Article 102 TFEU).

What I get from the second part of your analysis is that from an environmental protection perspective, this case provides an argument against proceduralisation of environmental law in favour of laying down (minimum) environmental standards.

The textbook definition of negligence is «conduct that falls below a standard of behavior established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm.»

The LAA announced in its headline intentions document in January 2017, that contracts in the following areas of law would be awarded to organisations meeting its suitability tests and able to meet quality standards: Family; Housing, Debt and Welfare Benefits; Immigration & Asylum (including IRCs); Claims against Public Authorities (currently known as «Actions Against the Police etc»); Community Care; Clinical Negligence; Mental Health; and Public Llaw would be awarded to organisations meeting its suitability tests and able to meet quality standards: Family; Housing, Debt and Welfare Benefits; Immigration & Asylum (including IRCs); Claims against Public Authorities (currently known as «Actions Against the Police etc»); Community Care; Clinical Negligence; Mental Health; and Publagainst Public Authorities (currently known as «Actions Against the Police etc»); Community Care; Clinical Negligence; Mental Health; and PublAgainst the Police etc»); Community Care; Clinical Negligence; Mental Health; and Public LawLaw.

One may already stop here to wonder whether the EFTA Court is not making its life too easy speaking of an interpretation of EEA law «in the light» of fundamental rights in the present case; a more thorough reasoning would have had to grapple with the scope of EEA law in the case: Only if Iceland was acting effectively within the scope of EEA law here the fundamental rights standards of EEA law apply under the EFTA Court's supervision; otherwise one could argue that the Supreme Court of Iceland's action ought to be judged against the benchmark of domestic fundamental rights and ECHR standards (compare the rich debate on the parallel problem in EU law which focuses on Article 51 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights).

It is against state law for a manufacturer to make and sell a helmet that does not meet safety standards that the national commissioner sets.

Concern for the rule of law is leading some Supreme Court Justices to push back against the presumption of deference and return to more of a «functional and pragmatic» approach to standard of review.

It is useful to quote key observations by Stadlen J [at paras 126 - 129]: «In my view, notwithstanding the absence in the FTPP proceedings of some of the statutory and non-statutory safeguards which apply to criminal proceedings... [I] n deciding whether it would be fair to admit the hearsay evidence, the requirements both of Article 6 and of the common law obliged the FTPP to take into account the absence of all those [safeguards]... [I] n my judgment, no reasonable panel in the position of the FTPP could have reasonably concluded that there were factors outweighing the powerful factors pointing against the admission of the hearsay evidence... The means by which the claimant can challenge the hearsay evidence are... not in my judgment capable of outweighing those factors... The reality would appear to be that the factor which the FTPP considered decisive in favour of admitting the hearsay evidence was the serious nature of the allegations against the claimant coupled with the public interest in investigating such allegations and the FTPP's duty to protect the public interest in protecting patients, maintaining public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of behaviour... However, that factor on its own does not in my view diminish the weight which must be attached to the procedural safeguards to which a person accused of such allegations is entitled both at common law and under Article 6... The more serious the allegation, the greater the importance of ensuring that the accused doctor is afforded fair and proper procedural safeguards.

Fourth, in § 160.203, several criteria relating to the statutory grounds for exception determinations have been further spelled out: (1) The words «related to the provision of or payment for health care» have been added to the exception for fraud and abuse; (2) the words «to the extent expressly authorized by statute or regulation» have been added to the exception for state regulation of health plans; (3) the words «of serving a compelling need related to public health, safety, or welfare, and, where a standard, requirement, or implementation specification under part 164 of this subchapter is at issue, where the Secretary determines that the intrusion into privacy is warranted when balanced against the need to be served» have been added to the general exception «for other purposes»; and (4) the statutory provision regarding controlled substances has been elaborated on as follows: «Has as its principal purpose the regulation of the manufacture, registration, distribution, dispensing, or other control of any controlled substance, as defined at 21 U.S.C. 802, or which is deemed a controlled substance by state law.»

Virginia applies a standard to your conduct called contributory negligence: If your own conduct contributed to your injuries in any way — even if you were at fault 1 % and another person was 99 % at fault — Virginia law does not permit you to make a personal injury claim against the other person.

He also suggests that the Canadian Bar Association should take the lead in determining whether institutional screening devices «such as Chinese walls and cones of silence» might be effective in shielding against a transferee lawyer «tainting» his or her new law firm and in developing national standards for using such devices.

Such thinking may have been the reason why two recent statutory appeals against determinations of the SDT have proceeded on the basis of common ground between the parties that the applicable standard of proof was the criminal standard: see Afloabi v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2011] EWHC 2122 (Admin) and Law Society v Waddingham [2012] EWHC 1519 (Admin).

When I hear of local bar associations in the U.S. taking legal action against the providers of reputable online legal services on the ground of their unauthorized practice of law, or when I hear that senior general counsel in the U.S. have said that nonlawyers should not be permitted to deliver legal services because only lawyers can achieve the requisite ethics standards required of a legal adviser, or when I hear of opposition to various forms of liberalization on the part of members of the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20, I want to challenge whether this is about protecting clients or protecting lawyers.

The Committee rejected the argument that the common law is the standard against which legislative actions should be judged as non-discriminatory.

It is thus timely that the 2002 Native Title Report evaluates these principles against the human rights standards to which Australia is committed under international law.

Winning passage of state license laws was an early priority for association leaders, who believed a baseline standard would afford some protection against unscrupulous sorts.