Sentences with phrase «trial court decisions for»

Even systems that boast comprehensiveness probably do not have trial court decisions for all the jurisdictions for which they have appellate decisions.

Not exact matches

SB 219 would serve to clarify employer requirements and keep New Hampshire in compliance with current Federal laws and court decisions, including the March 25 Supreme Court ruling on Young vs United Parcel Service (UPS), which ruled in favor of Peggy Young to reverse the lower court's decision and to have a trial, after she sued UPS under the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act, for failure to provide pregnancy accommodatcourt decisions, including the March 25 Supreme Court ruling on Young vs United Parcel Service (UPS), which ruled in favor of Peggy Young to reverse the lower court's decision and to have a trial, after she sued UPS under the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act, for failure to provide pregnancy accommodatCourt ruling on Young vs United Parcel Service (UPS), which ruled in favor of Peggy Young to reverse the lower court's decision and to have a trial, after she sued UPS under the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act, for failure to provide pregnancy accommodatcourt's decision and to have a trial, after she sued UPS under the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act, for failure to provide pregnancy accommodations.

Pataki pretty much stuck to the GOP line, criticizing the president for entitling «enemy combatants» to Miranda warnings, enabling them to «lawyer up and not talk about what they know»; and going along with US AG Eric Holder's decision to (so far) hold the KSM trial in a civilian court in NYC.

The Missouri Supreme Court «agreed with the trial court's decision to dismiss several counts (including partisan gerrymandering claims), but remanded for a determination of whether the congressional districts (particularly districts 3 and 5) were sufficiently compact under state constitutional law.&rCourt «agreed with the trial court's decision to dismiss several counts (including partisan gerrymandering claims), but remanded for a determination of whether the congressional districts (particularly districts 3 and 5) were sufficiently compact under state constitutional law.&rcourt's decision to dismiss several counts (including partisan gerrymandering claims), but remanded for a determination of whether the congressional districts (particularly districts 3 and 5) were sufficiently compact under state constitutional law.»

For trial court judges, the prospect of appellate review of their decisions partially mitigates the risk of a judge making bad decisions due to declining intellectual capacity.

Appealing his conviction, lawyers for former Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos say he should receive a new trial based on the outcome of a Supreme Court decision outlining how public corruption charges should be interpreted.

The jury for New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez's corruption trial told the court they could not reach a unanimous decision on the charges.

The landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision Gideon v. Wainwright determined it to be an «obvious truth» that criminal defendants can not get a fair trial without a lawyer and mandated all states under the Constitution to provide attorneys for defendants unable to afford their own lawyers.

ZUG, Switzerland; CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts; BERKELEY, California; DUBLIN, Ireland; July 25, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE)-- CRISPR Therapeutics (NASDAQ: CRSP), Intellia Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTLA), Caribou Biosciences, Inc. and ERS Genomics, Ltd. announced that The Regents of the University of California, the University of Vienna, and Dr. Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively «UC»), co-owners of foundational intellectual property relating to CRISPR / Cas9 genome engineering, today submitted an appellate brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the «Federal Circuit») seeking reversal of a decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board («PTAB») in an interference proceeding relating to CRISPR / Cas9 gene editing technology.

That paved the way for a bizarre 2011 trial court decision holding that the state was underfunding education by billions of dollars each year.

The Court's 5 - to - 4 decision in Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico affirms an appellate - court decision returning the closely watched censorship case to federal district court for tCourt's 5 - to - 4 decision in Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico affirms an appellate - court decision returning the closely watched censorship case to federal district court for tcourt decision returning the closely watched censorship case to federal district court for tcourt for trial.

A New Jersey judge has ruled that the Woodbury school district may continue its 22 - year - old policy of starting each school day with a moment of silence «for contemplation» pending a trial on that case and decisions in two related federal - court cases.

The ruling by a three - judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, issued March 12, remands for trial a decision issued last year by U.S. District Judge Neal P. McCurn of Syracuse, N.Y.

Marcellus McRae, a lawyer for the Vergara team who did most of the questioning during the two - month trial, said the value of a court decision is that it was free of political partisanship and influence with an unassailable rationale: «There's no negotiating around the Constitution.

Alexandria, Va. (September 30, 2015)- The National School Boards Association (NSBA), joined by the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB) filed a «friend of the court» (amicus) brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit regarding Salazar v. South San Antonio Independent School District, urging the Court to overturn the trial court's decicourt» (amicus) brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit regarding Salazar v. South San Antonio Independent School District, urging the Court to overturn the trial court's deciCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit regarding Salazar v. South San Antonio Independent School District, urging the Court to overturn the trial court's deciCourt to overturn the trial court's decicourt's decision.

In the brief, the amici (NSBA, et al.) urge the Court to review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit extending the stay - put obligation through completion of all appeals — a departure from previous court rulings that limited the stay - put obligation only until a trial court issued a deciCourt to review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit extending the stay - put obligation through completion of all appeals — a departure from previous court rulings that limited the stay - put obligation only until a trial court issued a deciCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit extending the stay - put obligation through completion of all appeals — a departure from previous court rulings that limited the stay - put obligation only until a trial court issued a decicourt rulings that limited the stay - put obligation only until a trial court issued a decicourt issued a decision.

The ruling was a stunning, wholesale reversal of trial and appeals court decisions that found for the plaintiffs, with damages to the Orleans Parish school system and the state estimated as high as $ 1.5 billion to pay the employees» back pay and benefits.

The groups urge the Court to review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit extending the stay - put obligation through completion of all appeals — a departure from previous court rulings that limited the stay - put obligation only until a trial court issued a deciCourt to review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit extending the stay - put obligation through completion of all appeals — a departure from previous court rulings that limited the stay - put obligation only until a trial court issued a deciCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit extending the stay - put obligation through completion of all appeals — a departure from previous court rulings that limited the stay - put obligation only until a trial court issued a decicourt rulings that limited the stay - put obligation only until a trial court issued a decicourt issued a decision.

The General Attorney occupation covers professional legal positions involved in preparing cases for trial and / or the trial of cases before a court or an administrative body or persons having quasi-judicial power; rendering legal advice and services with respect to questions, regulations, practices, or other matters falling within the purview of a Federal Government agency (this may include conducting investigations to obtain evidentiary data); preparing interpretative and administrative orders, rules, or regulations to give effect to the provisions of governing statutes or other requirements of law; drafting, negotiating, or examining contracts or other legal documents required by the agency's activities; drafting, preparing formal comments, or otherwise making substantive recommendations with respect to proposed legislation; editing and preparing for publication statutes enacted by Congress, opinions or discussions of a court, commission, or board; drafting and reviewing decisions for consideration and adoption by agency officials.

On the grounds that Judge Denise Cote's decision to move forward with the classification and damages phases of the trial on going case, Apple managed to win a stay by the three - judge panel of the Second Circuit court, at least for now.

But the appellate court's decision to keep blocking the ban pending trial or further appeal is also «a losing situation for the business travel industry,» GBTA said, because «the uncertainty it will create as we await an appeal to the Supreme Court will continue to make its court's decision to keep blocking the ban pending trial or further appeal is also «a losing situation for the business travel industry,» GBTA said, because «the uncertainty it will create as we await an appeal to the Supreme Court will continue to make its Court will continue to make its mark.

We will build a full factual record for trial so that the Court can make the best informed decision in this crucial constitutional case,» said Julia Olson, executive director of Our Children's Trust and co-lead counsel for the youth plaintiffs, in a statement.

This week, the former associate, Kevin M. Plante, won a decision from the Massachusetts Appeals Court reinstating his wrongful - termination lawsuit against the firm, after a trial court judge had dismissed his suit for the reason that it would expose client confideCourt reinstating his wrongful - termination lawsuit against the firm, after a trial court judge had dismissed his suit for the reason that it would expose client confidecourt judge had dismissed his suit for the reason that it would expose client confidences.

Common topics discussed include: relevant Illinois trial court and appellate court decisions, common medical issues arising in personal injury cases, and pretrial and trial practice tips for Illinois practitioners.»

Liptak cites dictum from a 1993 decision, Herrera v. Collins, in which Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court,» [W] e may assume, for the sake of argument in deciding this case, that in a capital case a truly persuasive demonstration of «actual innocence» made after trial would render the execution of a defendant unconstitutional and warrant federal habeas relief.»

In a helpful decision for employers looking to minimize wasteful litigation (Frith v. Cable Birdge Enterprises Limited, 2013 ONSC 6436), an Ontario Divisional Court Judge overturned a trial court judge's decision that a plaintiff could puruse her employer for termination pay (notice and severance) before the Ontario Ministry of Labour (MOL) and the Superior Court even though her complaint before the MOL was never adjudicated (it appears she withdrew her complaint months after filingCourt Judge overturned a trial court judge's decision that a plaintiff could puruse her employer for termination pay (notice and severance) before the Ontario Ministry of Labour (MOL) and the Superior Court even though her complaint before the MOL was never adjudicated (it appears she withdrew her complaint months after filingcourt judge's decision that a plaintiff could puruse her employer for termination pay (notice and severance) before the Ontario Ministry of Labour (MOL) and the Superior Court even though her complaint before the MOL was never adjudicated (it appears she withdrew her complaint months after filingCourt even though her complaint before the MOL was never adjudicated (it appears she withdrew her complaint months after filing it).

Incorporation vs. Merger of Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) with Decree: The basis for the Arizona Court of Appeals» decision to affirm the decision made by the trial court to decrease spousal maintenance was based on the fact that the PSA was incorporated into the decree; not meCourt of Appeals» decision to affirm the decision made by the trial court to decrease spousal maintenance was based on the fact that the PSA was incorporated into the decree; not mecourt to decrease spousal maintenance was based on the fact that the PSA was incorporated into the decree; not merged.

In a 9 - 0 decision, the Alabama Supreme Court agreed, finding that the product had been substantially altered after leaving the possession of CNH America and remanded the case back to the trial court for entry of judgment as a matter of law in favor ofCourt agreed, finding that the product had been substantially altered after leaving the possession of CNH America and remanded the case back to the trial court for entry of judgment as a matter of law in favor ofcourt for entry of judgment as a matter of law in favor of CNH.

511, 873 P. 2d 413 (1994), a decision by an intermediate appellate court, in which the defendant does not appear to have objected to the trial court's instructions as inaccurate, incomplete, or insufficient, for failure to inform the jury concerning a statutorily mandated $ 500,000 cap on noneconomic damages.

On appeal, the Virginia Court of Appeals affirmed the decisions of the trial court judge and denied wife's request of attorney's fees and costs for defending the apCourt of Appeals affirmed the decisions of the trial court judge and denied wife's request of attorney's fees and costs for defending the apcourt judge and denied wife's request of attorney's fees and costs for defending the appeal.

Acted for a shareholder - director in a long - running unfair prejudice action in relation to two English companies, which produced two important decisions in this area in the Court of Appeal (see [2013] Bus LR 753 and [2013] 2 BCLC 46), including acting as sole counsel at a consequentials trial and subsequent non-party costs proceedings.

Temporary Visitation Order for Grandparents in Arizona On August 12, 2014, a decision was handed down regarding a special action that arose from a trial court's temporary order in the paternity action brought by Molly Lambertus (Mother) against Tyler Day (Father) in which it was ordered that the paternal grandmother, Linda Faye Day - Strange (Grandmother), be -LSB-...]

She has been recognized by the Court for her success in winning a prisoner civil rights jury trial, and has secured favorable summary judgment decisions in multiple cases.

When a party takes a case to trial and does not get the result they had hoped for, they can sometimes appeal the lower court's decision to an appellate court to have the case reviewed.

With respect to the claim of an imminency requirement, the Court noted that this issue had been mentioned in Bird Construction and litigated in other decisions, and the courts have regularly permitted claims for non-imminent dangerous defects to proceed to trial.

It was good news for Jordan himself, as the top court's 5 - 4 decision stayed the charges against him, finding his constitutional right to a trial in a reasonable time, enshrined in section 11 (b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, had been violated.

After reserving its decision for ten months, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the trial judgment — in part.

In a decision released on January 18, 2017, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and provided clarity with respect to procedure for civil jury trials.

In reasons for judgment released this week, the Court of Appeal in Donaldson v. Dorworth, 2017 BCCA 236, dismissed the plaintiff's appeal of the trial judge's decision to uphold the defence jury notice.

Over and above the analysis of the above - mentioned errors, counsel representing Plaintiffs or Defendants at a jury trial for medical negligence, and at other civil trials, should be aware of the numerous procedural lessons to be gleaned from the Court of Appeal's decision:

In support of her request for a stay, Teng cited the Supreme Court's recent decision in R.v. Jordan (an important recent case which we've previously blogged about) which sets a 30 - month time limit between an accused arrest and the end of their trial.

The recent court of appeal case Kish v Sobchak 2016 BCCA 65 stems from a decision made on summary trial regarding a claim by the deceased's spouse to vary his Will to provide for her.

This appeal considered whether a commissioning body can, by its decision not to fund a particular option for contact, remove the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection to make a best interests decision about contact, and whether the failure to conduct a best interests assessment and / or determine the facts breached the appellant's rights under the ECHR to a fair trial and a family life.

The parties did not address spousal support in their property settlement agreement, but left it for a decision by the trial court.

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.

The Supreme Court's 2004 decision Crawford v. Washington redefined the standard for admission of out - of - court statements by witnesses absent from trial in criminal cCourt's 2004 decision Crawford v. Washington redefined the standard for admission of out - of - court statements by witnesses absent from trial in criminal ccourt statements by witnesses absent from trial in criminal cases.

I suspect that the real heavy lifting in enhancing access to justice is a matter of procedural reform — specialized decision - making bodies with extremely simplified procedural rules for specific civil law issues (something that actually already exists in certain areas such as Landlord / Tenant, but could be further improved upon), wider permissions for over-the-counter motions, fewer unnecessary court appearances, fewer procedurally - mandated appearances (e.g., going from a Case Conference to a Settlement Conference to a Trial Management Conference, and possibly further, before you can get to a family law trial), and sTrial Management Conference, and possibly further, before you can get to a family law trial), and strial), and so on.

In its decision denying the application for disqualification of the trial judge, the appeal court made the following observations regarding Groia's conduct in the OSC hearing:

The recent decision of the European Court of Justice in Pannon v Gyorfi C - 243 / 08 will have major implications for the trial of small and not so small claims.

So, the Ontario Superior Court has added to the decisions confirming that class action proceedings are appropriate — even preferable — for claims arising from mass terminations, even if the common issues trial won't dispose of all the issues and some of the class members have already started or finished proceedings in other forums, particularly with the Ministry of Labour and the Labour Relations Board, which preclude class claims.