Sentences with phrase «than court purposes»

If you are being charged less, there may be some additional fees coming or you are taking it for insurance purposes rather than court purposes.

Not exact matches

Because status as an «employee» for purposes of the FLSA depends on the totality of circumstances rather than on any technical label, courts must examine the «economic reality» of the working relationship.

Pretty strong language, but no stronger than the metaphor Daniel Mitchell of the Heritage Foundation used, in an op - ed article in The Washington Times, to «describe a bill designed to prevent corporations from rechartering abroad for tax purposes: Mitchell described this legislation as the «Dred Scott tax bill,» referring to the infamous 1857 Supreme Court ruling that required free states to return escaped slaves.

In effect, the Court makes it impossible to have anything other than a procedural common good as a motive or purpose for political activity.

- Post, link to or otherwise publish any Messages containing material that is obscene, racist, homophobic or sexist or that contains any form of hate speech; - Post, link to or otherwise publish any Messages that infringe copyright; - Post, link to or otherwise publish any Messages that are illegal, libellous, defamatory or may prejudice ongoing legal proceedings or breach a court injunction or other order; - Post, link to or otherwise publish any Messages that are abusive, threatening or make any form of personal attack on another user or an employee of Packaging Europe magazine; - Post Messages in any language other than English; - Post the same Message, or a very similar Message, repeatedly; - Post or otherwise publish any Messages unrelated to the Forum or the Forum's topic; - Post, link to or otherwise publish any Messages containing any form of advertising or promotion for goods and services or any chain Messages or «spam»; - Post, link to or otherwise publish any Messages with recommendations to buy or refrain from buying a particular security or which contain confidential information of another party or which otherwise have the purpose of affecting the price or value of any security; - Disguise the origin of any Messages; - Impersonate any person or entity (including Packaging Europe magazine employees or Forum guests or hosts) or misrepresent any affiliation with any person or entity; - Post or transmit any Messages that contain software viruses, files or code designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of the Site or any computer software or equipment, or any other harmful component; - Collect or store other users» personal data; and / or - Restrict or inhibit any other user from using the Forums.

«The court affirmed the legality of counting incarcerated individuals in their home communities for the purposes of redrawing district lines, rather than the districts where they are in prison.»

«As if the palpable odium of intiating a vacuous criminal charge against a whistle - blower, no less a person than a distinguished senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria was not bad enough, the prosecuting authority, obviously urged on by the Inspector General of Police, threw pretension to adherence to democratic tenets of the rule of law when it sought from the court, albeit most illegally, to obtain summons against Senator Misau, while deliberately witholding service of the copy of the charge on the Senator, an obvious stratagem conceived to frame up all manner of false allegations tailored to suit the obvious purpose of yet another gestapo strategy to use state powers to swoop on the Distinguished Senator and keep him out of circulation»

That wasn't always the case though, as New York's blue sky law was initially weaker than that of many other states, until the New York Supreme Court determined in People v Federated Radio Corporation (1926) that the act's purpose was to «defeat all kinds of fraud in connection with the sale of securities and commodities and to defeat all unsubstantial and visionary schemes in relation thereto whereby the public is fraudulently exploited,» even if the fraud can't be proven to have «originated in any actual evil design or contrivance to perpetrate fraud or injury upon others.»

«The Court actually affirmed the legality of sampling» for purposes other than apportionment, Daley said — namely, reshaping congressional districts within a state as well as distribution of federal money to the states.

Alabama also enacted tuition grant state laws permitting students to use vouchers at private schools in the mid-1950s, while also enacting nullification statutes against court desegregation mandates and altering its teacher tenure laws to allow the firing of teachers who supported desegregation.50 Alabama's tuition grant laws would also come before the court, with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama declaring in Lee v. Macon County Board of Education vouchers to be «nothing more than a sham established for the purpose of financing with state funds a white school system.&rcourt desegregation mandates and altering its teacher tenure laws to allow the firing of teachers who supported desegregation.50 Alabama's tuition grant laws would also come before the court, with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama declaring in Lee v. Macon County Board of Education vouchers to be «nothing more than a sham established for the purpose of financing with state funds a white school system.&rcourt, with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama declaring in Lee v. Macon County Board of Education vouchers to be «nothing more than a sham established for the purpose of financing with state funds a white school system.&rCourt for the Middle District of Alabama declaring in Lee v. Macon County Board of Education vouchers to be «nothing more than a sham established for the purpose of financing with state funds a white school system.»

Two Illinois courts of appeals held that Illinois» tax credit for educational expenses is constitutional because it has a clearly secular legislative purpose of ensuring a well - educated citizenry and relieving public expense, has the primary effect of effectuating those purposes, and involves no more government entanglement with religion than many other state tax laws.

Knowing who owns the art for what purposes is a big deal when this sort of thing happens, and the only thing worse than being enemies with your artist is fighting each other in court.

After the loss in court, I sold for a 70 % + loss, and then insult added to injury happened again... after 9/11, the products that they made for structural purposes came into high demand, and the stock shot up more than fifteen times.

The temporary court system's purpose is to resolve all minor crimes within two weeks in the hope that international visitors will not have to remain in Canada longer than they had planned or return to Canada for trials.

The brief argues that the Court's invitation to overrule key First Amendment precedents would undermine, rather than advance, First Amendment values by granting corporations the power to use huge corporate treasury funds in electoral campaigns even though such funds were not accumulated for political purposes.

In these circumstances the Court decided to refer the following questions for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU: 1) whether for the purposes of Art. 2 (2)(c), Member States can require the direct descendant who is older than 21 years to have tried, without success, to obtain employment in the country of origin in order to be regarded as «dependant» and fall within the scope of the provision; and 2) whether in interpreting the term «dependant» any significance should be attached to the fact that the family member is, due to the personal circumstances such as age, education and health, deemed to obtain employment in the host Member State, which would mean that the conditions of dependence will no longer be met.

At least the court revised the insurer's proposed terms to circumscribe the obligation in these terms: «The defence insurer shall be entitled to require the claimant to undergo medical examination at its request upon reasonable notice being given to the claimant at any time during the claimant's lifetime, such medical examinations to be limited to obtaining a medical opinion as to the claimant's general health in order to obtain a quotation for the purchase cost of an annuity to fund the periodical payments and / or (not more frequently than once every seven years) for the express purposes of reviewing its reserve.

The court examined the facts and found that there was an expectation that the original design could be used for purposes other than presentation to the possible donors.

Other than in regard to the type of matters assigned to them by Parliament, they are, for all intents and purposes, performing the same task as Federal Court Judges.

Second, the Court found that «family», for the purposes of Article 15, must necessarily have a wider meaning than the definition of «family members» under Article 2 (i) of the Regulation.

I would suggest that, rather than functioning in conjunction with the Article 267 TFEU mechanism, the purpose of a joint court would be to provide a substitute for such preliminary reference.

Rather, their approach was much more theoretical than practical.60 In 1779, Thomas Jefferson, then the Governor of Virginia, established «a Professorship of Law and Police» at William and Mary College.61 George Wythe, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and, not coincidentally, the lawyer under whom Jefferson apprenticed, was appointed.62 The purpose of the course of study Wythe taught was less about producing practicing lawyers than it was educating the statesmen of the New Republic.63 Wythe did attempt to blend in some practical training with his lectures and readings through the use of a moot court and a moot legislature, though there is no indication that Wythe required any writing on the part of the students.64

In Upjohn Co. v. United States, 6 the United States Supreme Court held that a company's attorney — client privilege extends to company counsel's communications with employees in certain prescribed circumstances.7 Rather than providing a simple objective test, the Upjohn court instead established five factors to guide courts in determining whether the company's privilege should extend to counsel's communications with its employees: (1) whether the communications were made by employees at the direction of superior officers of the company for the purpose of obtaining legal advice; (2) whether the communications contained information necessary for counsel to render legal advice, which was not otherwise available from «control group» management; (3) whether the matters communicated were within the scope of the employee's corporate duties; (4) whether the employee knew that the communications were for the purpose of the company obtaining legal advice; and (5) whether the communications were ordered to be kept confidential by the employee's superiors, including that the communications were considered confidential at the time and kept confidential subsequent to the interview.8 When these elements are established, courts generally consider communications between company counsel and an employee to be within the scope of the company's attorney — client privilCourt held that a company's attorney — client privilege extends to company counsel's communications with employees in certain prescribed circumstances.7 Rather than providing a simple objective test, the Upjohn court instead established five factors to guide courts in determining whether the company's privilege should extend to counsel's communications with its employees: (1) whether the communications were made by employees at the direction of superior officers of the company for the purpose of obtaining legal advice; (2) whether the communications contained information necessary for counsel to render legal advice, which was not otherwise available from «control group» management; (3) whether the matters communicated were within the scope of the employee's corporate duties; (4) whether the employee knew that the communications were for the purpose of the company obtaining legal advice; and (5) whether the communications were ordered to be kept confidential by the employee's superiors, including that the communications were considered confidential at the time and kept confidential subsequent to the interview.8 When these elements are established, courts generally consider communications between company counsel and an employee to be within the scope of the company's attorney — client privilcourt instead established five factors to guide courts in determining whether the company's privilege should extend to counsel's communications with its employees: (1) whether the communications were made by employees at the direction of superior officers of the company for the purpose of obtaining legal advice; (2) whether the communications contained information necessary for counsel to render legal advice, which was not otherwise available from «control group» management; (3) whether the matters communicated were within the scope of the employee's corporate duties; (4) whether the employee knew that the communications were for the purpose of the company obtaining legal advice; and (5) whether the communications were ordered to be kept confidential by the employee's superiors, including that the communications were considered confidential at the time and kept confidential subsequent to the interview.8 When these elements are established, courts generally consider communications between company counsel and an employee to be within the scope of the company's attorney — client privilege.9

Secondly, the Supreme Court made it clear that the duties owed by auditors will very much be defined by the scope of their retainer — i.e. an auditor's opinion given for a limited purpose can not be used to found liability when used for purposes other than that for which it was intended.

The McKenzie ruling was interpreted by the SFO as a «landmark High Court ruling», but in reality, the Divisional Court did no more than uphold the status quo, confirming the legality of the SFO's existing procedures for isolating material potentially subject to LPP, for the purpose of making it available to an independent lawyer for review.

Although the issue of gender was not an equal protection claim in Loomis, the court wrote of Compas: «If the inclusion of gender promotes accuracy, it serves the interests of institutions and defendants, rather than a discriminatory purpose.»

Thus, the district court did not feel free to consider whether «any unwarranted disparity created by the crack / powder ratio» produced a sentence ««greater than necessary» to achieve § 3553 (a)'s purposes.»

The Chamberlain court also expressed concern that locks could be used to create and extend monopolies for private gain rather than fulfilling the purposes of intellectual property law protection.

``... There has been a plague of cases in this court and lower courts wherein litigants appear to engage the judicial assets of this province for a purpose other than to resolve legitimate legal disputes,» Scanlan said in R. v. Cummings.

«In Figueroa v. United States (June 28, 2005), the Court of Federal Claims concluded that Congress» practice of using money generated from patent application fees paid to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for purposes other than supporting USPTO operations did not violate the Intellectual Property Clause of the Constitution.»

[5] During the first stage of the analysis, reviewing courts were charged with examining four factors: whether there was a privative, or conversely an appeal, clause in the decision maker's home statute; [6] whether the decision maker was relatively more expert than the reviewing court in respect of the decision under review; what the purpose of the statutory scheme and of the particular provision or provisions at issue was; and what the nature of the question in dispute was.

The Arbitration Act itself specifically provides that Courts are not to interfere in disputes covered by an arbitration agreement other than for the limited purposes of assisting in the conduct of arbitrations, ensuring that they are conducted in accordance with arbitration clauses, to prevent unequal or unfair treatment of parties to arbitration clauses, and to enforce arbitration awards.

It has been my experience that federal court judges are more than willing to allow you as many requests for admission (FRCP 36) as you need if their purpose is to encourage a recalcitrant adversary to admit that documents you plan to use at trial are authentic or kept in the regular course of business or constitute past recollection recorded.

Even if a custodial sentence was appropriate in this case, it is a well - established principle of sentencing laid down by this court that a first sentence of imprisonment should be as short as possible and tailored to the individual circumstances of the accused rather than solely for the purpose of general deterrence.

He relied on the Court of Appeal decision in Clibbery v Allen and submitted that financial and other personal information, when disclosed pursuant to the duty to give full disclosure, must not be reported when referred to at a hearing because of the existence of an implied undertaking not to use such documents for any purpose other than for the proceedings.

On appeal, a three - person bench of the Court of Arches overturned the decision, deciding that there were sufficient benefits to outweigh the risk that some individuals would use the facility for less than admirable purposes.

Notable mandates: Acted for Soltoro Ltd. in connection with its successful disposition by plan of arrangement to Agnico Eagle Mines Ltd.; co-counsel for Trillium Motor World Ltd. in class action against General Motors of Canada Ltd. and Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP; acted for Canadian Solar Inc. in connection with raising an aggregate of US$ 50 million in equity and US$ 100 million in debt financing for acquisition financing and working capital purposes; external counsel to the Regional Municipality of York, providing a wide range of municipal, real estate, expropriation, litigation, and commercial law advice and services; counsel to minority shareholder of a Nevis LLC worth more than US$ 500 million with respect to a claim for relief from unfair prejudice in litigation in Nevis and the Commercial Division of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court in British Virgin Islands, and in contemporaneous related actions in Belize and the United States.

The Court noted that the employer was open about its purpose — it wished to ensure the member's claim was dealt with by the Court rather than by the Pensions Ombudsman.

In the recent decision in Brandley and WJB Developments v Deane and Ors, the Supreme Court ruled that in property damage cases, for the purposes of the Statute of Limitations, the cause of action accrues on the date on which the defect in question commences causing loss, rather than the date on which the defective work was completed.

In other words, the court may consider if the transferor had any rational purpose for the transfer, other than as a gift.

There is no suggestion that any of the records were destroyed for other than legitimate business purposes, or that there was any intent to interfere with the ability of the Courts to access that evidence.»

In denying summary judgment to GE and granting summary judgment to Boston Edison, the Court found that: (1) while the construction work performed by GE met the definition of an improvement to real property for purposes of the statute of repose, public policy considerations necessitated an exception to the application of the statute in cases involving alleged asbestos - related disease; (2) the installation of asbestos insulation was not an abnormally dangerous activity; (3) Boston Edison did not exercise sufficient control over the work at issue to be held negligent; and (4) a premises owner, such as Boston Edison, has no duty to warn where the subcontractor has knowledge of the hazard which is equal to or greater than that of the premises owner.

Rather than using the earnings approach for the purposes of determining an amount to award the Plaintiff for diminished earning capacity, the Court adopted the capital asset approach, as set out in Brown v. Golaiy.

In this case, where Mr. White's Guideline range was more than doubled on the basis of acquitted conduct, the District Court did not adequately examine whether the sentence complied with the SRA and, in particular, the statutory purposes of sentencing.

Rather than try to concoct an array of legal definitions for reasonableness review, I believe the Supreme Court should simply encourage circuit courts to determine and explain, on a case - by - case basis, whether and how a particular sentencing outcome serves the purposes that Congress set out in the statutory text of the Sentencing Reform Act.

Purposes of Part 4 The purposes of this Part are as follows: (a) to ensure that parties to a family law dispute are informed of the various methods available to resolve the dispute; (b) to encourage parties to a family law dispute to resolve the dispute through agreements and appropriate family dispute resolution before making an application to a court; (c) to encourage parents and guardians to (i) resolve conflict other than through court intervention, and (ii) create parenting arrangements and arrangements respecting contact with a child that is in the best interests of the child.

Increasingly, courts in the developed world only require an original rather than a scanned image or photocopy, in cases where the authenticity of the original is in doubt (i.e. where there are facts that suggest that it is possible that the original is fake or forged), but this is certainly not universal international practice for all purposes for which you might use a document.

But yes, the people who lay charges should be keeping track for their own purposes, and charges laid under a provision that has been invalidated will not have a long life, unless there is an intention to appeal through to a higher court than the one that proclaime the invalidity before.

It seems to me that the ratio decidendi of the Eurig case in the Supreme Court in about 1998 came out of the clear blue sky: that a fee that recovers more than the cost of providing the service for which it is charged is a tax, and thus must satisfy the legal requirements of taxation, namely that it be authorized by legislation and for provincial purposes, that it be a direct tax.

The purpose of Small Claims Court is to take disputes involving relatively small amounts of money out of the more formal judicial system, in the hope that the claims can be resolved more quickly and at less expense than in a full - scale court Court is to take disputes involving relatively small amounts of money out of the more formal judicial system, in the hope that the claims can be resolved more quickly and at less expense than in a full - scale court court case.