Sentences with phrase «statute in question»

The federal statute in question, the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA), 49 U.S.C. § 20701 et seq., was passed by Congress in 1915.

The five statutes in question were struck down because the State of California, helped by the California Teachers Association, could not show that the laws in any way supported the education of children.

The problem with the plaintiffs» argument, according to the court, was that it did not prove that the statutes in question disproportionately harmed a particular class of children.

«The statute in question, 18 U.S.C. § 1512, makes it a crime to «knowingly [and]... corruptly persuade» others to withhold documents from an official proceeding.

The court ultimately found that «prior cases have consistently rejected the use of sex as a decision - making factor, even though the statutes in question certainly rested on far more predictive empirical relationships than this.»

The statute in question reads as follows and appears to have been last amended on September 1, 2013.

Two justices (one regular justice and a trial judge filling in due to a vacancy on the court) found the statute in question violated the ND constitution.

The agency's status as an aggrieved party under § 1252 is not altered by the fact that the Executive may agree with the holding that the statute in question is unconstitutional.

For instance, could the US Congress pass a law saying «Wherever ambiguity arises in statutory interpretation, the statute in question shall be understood as to favor the least powerful party in a dispute»?

Once Fullilove is applied, as JUSTICE STEVENS points out, it follows that the statutes in question here (which are substantially better tailored to the harm being remedied than the statute endorsed in Fullilove, see ante, at 259 - 264 (STEVENS, J., dissenting)-RRB- pass muster under Fifth Amendment due process and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection.

The substantive issue for consideration here, one of first impression for this Court, is whether the recovery - enabling provision of the statute in question allows the fatally injured party's estate to recover damages for the loss of income he or she could have earned had death not occurred.

In Cantwell v. Connecticut, the statute in question forbade solicitation for religious causes without a license with this discretionary power in the secretary of the public welfare council:

The Commonwealth insists that the statute in question serves a secular legislative purpose, observing that the legislature required the following notation in small print at the bottom of each display of the Ten Commandments:

The statute in question is at 8 USC 1185 (b), and it says

Because English law does not recognise a claim for damages for breach of a public law right as such, a claimant who wishes to recover compensation for economic losses allegedly suffered as a result of a breach of statutory duty by a public authority must satisfy the court that the statute in question confers on him a private law cause of action.

The court looked at the two statutes in question.

The court determined that because the statute in question did not prohibit such clauses and the fact that the Owners were sophisticated in financial matters, public policy did not bar the enforcement of the Agreement's exculpatory clause and so affirmed the ruling by the trial court in favor of A.M.