Sentences with phrase «state your opinion upon»

This kind of essay is a piece of writing, aim of which is to state your opinion upon some topics.

Not exact matches

It shall be unlawful for any broker, dealer, or exchange, directly or indirectly, to make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce for the purpose of using any facility of an exchange within or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to effect any transaction in a security, or to report any such transaction, unless such exchange (1) is registered as a national securities exchange under section 6 of this title, or (2) is exempted from such registration upon application by the exchange because, in the opinion of the Commission, by reason of the limited volume of transactions effected on such exchange, it is not practicable and not necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors to require such registration

Now, even though I am not of an opinion on this issue please do not feel that your interpretation of the Separation of Church from the state is universally agreed upon.

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeacStates, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeacstates, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeacStates; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeacStates, except in cases of impeachment.

The court, which had Mr Justice Francis Korbieh and Mr Justice L. L. Mensah as the other panel members, was also of the opinion that all the grounds upon which the state accused Woyome of causing financial loss to the state failed before them.

The Appeals Court judges were also of the opinion that all the grounds upon which state prosecutors are accusing Mr. Woyome of causing financial loss to the State fails before state prosecutors are accusing Mr. Woyome of causing financial loss to the State fails before State fails before them.

According to Chairwoman Cornell, Vanderhoef issued a letter to the legislature stating that in his opinion the move violated state and federal law by proceeding upon terms materially different from the request for outgoing bids and failing to address the responsibility of all bidders.

«Having said that, we want to be very clear to our taxpayers in Southold that, given the review of this finding, we are very comfortable and confident that we are not — in any way — under fiscal stress based upon the state's definition of that, in my opinion.»

Upon being contacted by Gamespot, EA have stated the opinion that Loot Boxes are not gambling.

... Upon formation of Coalition, key leaders will begin media outreach, eg editorial board tours, opinion articles, and brief elected officials in selected states.»

Though scientific consensus must always be open to responsible skepticism given: (a) the strength of the consensus on this topic, (b) the enormity of the harms predicted by the consensus view, (c) an approximately 30 year delay in taking action that has transpired since a serious climate change debate began in the United States in the early 1980s, (d) a delay that has made the problem worse while making it more difficult to achieve ghg emissions reductions necessary to prevent dangerous climate change because of the steepness of reductions now needed, no politician can ethically justify his or her refusal to support action on climate change based upon a personal opinion that is not supported by strong scientific evidence that has been reviewed by scientific organizations with a wide breadth of interdisciplinary scientific expertise.

According to secret documents uncovered in a court case, and reported by George Monbiot, it was to be «a national coalition intended to educate the media, public officials and the public about the dangers of «junk science»... Upon formation of Coalition, key leaders will begin media outreach, e.g. editorial board tours, opinion articles, and brief elected officials in selected states.»

«An adverse employment action motivated by these factors clearly imposes upon a woman a burden that male employees need not — indeed, could not — suffer,» the opinion states.

[5] AG Kokott in her opinion in this case (para. 143) claims that it can not be inferred from the concept of solidarity that there exists a duty upon EU states to provide financial assistance to the members experiencing budgetary difficulties.

And, in the last article, it is declared that it shall take effect and be obligatory upon the contracting parties as soon as the same shall have been ratified by the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the Senate, thereby showing the early opinion of the government of the character of the Cherokee Nation.

The author, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, addresses the audiences for opinions and explains judges» use of rhetoric in judicial opinions as a tool to stay within the constraints placed upon them by law, yet have some room to develop the law in certain ways.

In a very interesting conclusion, Thym argues that the Member States are in a weaker position when it comes to citizenship cases, since — if they disagree with the Court — it is practically impossible to change the Treaties and thus to force their opinion upon the CJEU.

Upon learning of this, Professor Lazar revised his opinion, stating the numbers would be «extremely small» and the costs of accommodating them with an IPIF policy would be «quite small, probably much smaller than the cost of challenging this.»

One best practice touched upon by some state opinions is to set out your firm's document retention and destruction policy in your engagement letter.

In a 27 - page opinion (PDF, English), the president of the commission, Jacques Frémont, states that he believes (along with numerous others) that several proposals in the government's policy paper contravene Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and infringe upon established fundamental rights and freedoms.

The three analogies: (1) whereas a pre-electronic paper record can be symbolized by a piece of paper in a file drawer, an electronic record is like a drop of water in a pool of water, i.e., it is completely dependent upon its ERMS for its existence, accessibility, and «integrity» (as that word is used in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts; e.g. s. 31.2 (1)(a) CEA); (2) if expert opinion evidence were rendered admissible in the way that electronic records are, there would be no evidence presented, nor cross-examination allowed, as to the qualifications of the expert witnesses, i.e., the «qualifications» of an electronic record being the state of records management of the ERMS in which it is stored; (3) going from a horse - powered transportation system to a motor vehicle - based transportation system has required a vast amount of new laws, regulations, and enforcement personnel, including police officers, judges, and lawyers, i.e., stepping up to a new technology requires that it be controlled by new laws and regulations, otherwise it will cause injury, damage, and injustice.

The Rules of Court in force at the time of this trial required an expert to state «the facts and assumptions upon which the opinion is based».

The ombudsman shall:... D. Furnish, upon request, advisory opinions regarding the interpretation of and compliance with the State's freedom of access laws to any person or public agency or official in an expeditious manner.

One 2012 opinion recognized, but seemingly ignored, the no - citation rule, stating «[w] e are aware of the legal rule barring citation to or reliance upon a depublished California case.

Thus it will be seen by these quotations from the opinion that the court, after stating the question it was about to decide in a manner too plain to be misunderstood, proceeded to decide it, and announced, as the opinion of the tribunal, that in organizing the judicial department of the Government in a Territory of the United States, Congress does not act under, and is not restricted by, the third article in the Constitution, and is not bound, in a Territory, to ordain and establish courts in which the judges hold their offices during good behaviour, but may exercise the discretionary power which a State exercises in establishing its judicial department and regulating the jurisdiction of its courts, and may authorize the Territorial Government to establish, or may itself establish, courts in which the judges hold their offices for a term of years only, and may vest in them judicial power upon subjects confided to the judiciary of the United States.

The opinion (attached) states that «It is routine for lawyers in Pennsylvania to rely upon Purdon's, as opposed to the [official] pamphlet laws, but there are times this routine must be broken.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

The opinion concluded, «If the State has a problem with judicial impartiality, it is largely one the State brought upon itself by continuing the practice of popularly electing judges.»

This Comment joins other work in arguing that the legitimacy of stare decisis depends upon widespread publication.4 The doctrine of stare decisis itself emerged only with the consistent and reliable publication of court opinions, 5 and legal processes that do not result in the issuance of publicly available opinions, such as settlements and arbitrations, generally lack stare decisis norms altogether.6 Although previous scholarship has discussed the proper role of stare decisis in the context of «unpublished» opinions, 7 which make up around eighty percent of all United States courts of appeals opinions8 (and are usually publicly available despite their name), 9 this Comment provides the first examination of the tenability of stare decisis as applied to truly secret opinions like those of the FISC.

U. L. Rev. 757, 770 (1995)(«Published opinions that state the facts and the reasoning upon which decisions rest are essential to the operation of stare decisis...»); William M. Richman & William L. Reynolds, The Supreme Court Rules for the Reporting of Opinions: A Critique, 46 Ohio St. L.J. 313, 314 (1985)(«The development of «hidden» precedents mocks the concept of stare decisis...&opinions that state the facts and the reasoning upon which decisions rest are essential to the operation of stare decisis...»); William M. Richman & William L. Reynolds, The Supreme Court Rules for the Reporting of Opinions: A Critique, 46 Ohio St. L.J. 313, 314 (1985)(«The development of «hidden» precedents mocks the concept of stare decisis...&Opinions: A Critique, 46 Ohio St. L.J. 313, 314 (1985)(«The development of «hidden» precedents mocks the concept of stare decisis...»).

Judicial opinions on when a child can be tried as an adult vary widely, and frequently depend on measures of children's physical development, contrary to international standards, which call upon states to make determinations of adult competence based on «emotional, mental and intellectual maturity,» and not the child's physical maturity.

The Governor of Ohio referred the matter to the Attorney General of the State of Ohio for his opinion and advice, and received from him a written opinion, upon which he acted, and refused to arrest or deliver up the fugitive, and, with his refusal, communicated to the Governor of Kentucky the opinion of the Attorney General, to show the grounds on which he refused.

In the PCIJ advisory opinion on Railway Traffic between Lithuania and Poland, the two states had concurred in accepting a recommendation to «enter into direct negotiations as soon as possible» so as to establish «the good understanding between nations upon which peace depends» — theoretically a «result» obligation, but perhaps so broadly worded that it is dubious whether it could be enforceable.

Upon completion, the diversion report is submitted to the State Attorney's Office with a diagnostic opinion and recommendation for program participation.

My oppositional opinion is based upon the current state of affairs regarding the highly overpopulated membership.

Further, Members other than REALTORS ® may, upon recommendation of the Membership Committee, or upon recommendation by a hearing panel of the Professional Standards Committee, be subject to discipline as described above, for any conduct, which in the opinion of the Board of Directors, applied on a nondiscriminatory basis, reflects adversely on the terms REALTOR ® or REALTORS ® and the real estate industry, or for conduct that is inconsistent with or adverse to the objectives and purposes of the local Association, the State Association, and the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS ®.