In 2009, Evans
turned Full Court Peace's Belfast program over to local control.
Not exact matches
ALBANY — Despite putting on a
full -
court press in the past year, state Archivist Christine Ward is no closer to getting a law passed that would legally require governors to
turn over their paper, electronic and email records.
It too is
full of history having been used for many things over the years including a magistrate's
court, a police station and barracks, a boarding house and an antique shop before being
turned back into an inn.
It might have looked like an essentially technical matter, but the Supreme
Court's recent decision in R. v. Tatton, 2015 SCC 33
turns out to be
full of interesting things to discuss.
[3] This latter concern, in
turn, relies on the idea that EU law provides (through the medium of member state
courts) such effective remedies and that by transferring disputes to investment arbitration (or by creating the possibility of such transfer), something short of
full effectiveness follows.
It
turns out that a second disciplinary complaint had been filed against him that finally brought the
full scope of his criminal wrongdoing to the supreme
court's attention.
The
Court decided that (a) the process of surcharging by administrative bodies engaged the criminal part of Article 6 and (b) the Austrian courts hearing appeals against the surcharges did not have the jurisdiction to carry out a «full review» of the decision to surcharge; only that way could one turn the combination of administrative decision and court decision into a decision by a «tribunal» complying with Artic
Court decided that (a) the process of surcharging by administrative bodies engaged the criminal part of Article 6 and (b) the Austrian
courts hearing appeals against the surcharges did not have the jurisdiction to carry out a «
full review» of the decision to surcharge; only that way could one
turn the combination of administrative decision and
court decision into a decision by a «tribunal» complying with Artic
court decision into a decision by a «tribunal» complying with Article 6.
Critics, in
turn, have argued that this presumption is an indispensable element to the practical operation of the open
court principle, insofar as it relieves judges, in the absence of countervailing evidence, of the onerous task of having to vet or screen the integrity of the press when presiding in
full view of the media.
«Denying a lawyer's right to free expression on behalf of a client in a
court of law in favour of a vague definition of civility and its application after the fact fetters and chills the lawyer's ability to engage in vigorous advocacy,» Groia argues in his factum, «in
turn damaging the public interest, as well as infringing [on] the ability of an accused or client to make
full answer and defence in a judicial proceeding.»
In a death penalty case, a lawyer calls him on a phone number provided by the
court (which
turns out to be the judge's cell phone) with the
full knowledge and consent of opposing counsel, to discuss a scheduling matter.
While each case
turns on its own facts, decisions of the United Kingdom and Canada suggest the
courts are inclined to give
full effect to the requirement that the item as produced complies with the prescribed criteria on the basis that although the customer or employer has specified or approved the design, the contractor is expected to take the risk if they agreed to work to a design that would render the item incapable of meeting the agreed criteria.
In reaching her decision as to how to deal with the quagmire of fairness, i.e. either the defendant is ordered to pay the
full amount of the judgment now and risks overpaying or the plaintiff is forced to wait — without any income — until the expiration of what he says is the reasonable notice period, Justice Pollak
turned to the decision of the Supreme
Court of Canada in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, and noted the following:
Looking at the
full history of the relationship between the Keenans and Canac, the
Court upheld the Trial judge's finding of exclusivity on the basis that over 30 years the Keenans were economically dependent on Canac and despite Canac
turning a «blind eye» to non-exclusive work the Keenans carried out for a competitor during the last two years of their relationship, the substantial majority of the work done by the Keenans continued to be performed for Canac.9
The judgment of Lord Justice Rimer in the instant case is a
full one, tracing the twists and
turns in the case law, from the fons et origo on one - man companies (Lee v Lee's Air Farming [1961] AC 12, [1960] 3 All ER 420), through the policy - driven phase (that the secretary of state's guarantee was, in effect, meant only for «real» employees) as exemplified in Buchan v SSE [1997] IRLR 80, and then to SSTI v Bottrill [2000] 1 All ER 915, [1999] IRLR 326, where the
Court of Appeal had not followed Buchan and had instead held that it was a question of fact, but in such a way as (the
Court of Appeal now accepted) had led to uncertainty of application.
35 In addition, the
Court held in paragraphs 29 and 30 of that judgment that the Austrian compensatory supplement has to be regarded as «non ‑ contributory», given that the costs are borne by a social institution which then receives reimbursement in
full from the relevant Land, which in
turn receives from the Federal budget the sums necessary to finance the benefit, and that at no time do the contributions of insured persons form part of this financing arrangement.
First, the
court will never allow parol evidence if the parties intended a
full and completely integrated agreement, and second, the
court will only
turn to parol evidence if the terms available are wholly ambiguous.
A lead attorney and
court location will probably be chosen later this week, and the iPhone throttling PR crisis could
turn into a
full - blown legal nightmare for the secretive Cupertino - based company, which may need to disclose «sensitive information about its software development process» to fend off the accusations.