Sentences with phrase «unanimous appeals court panel»

Not exact matches

Her decision was upheld by a unanimous Court of Appeals panel comprised of judges appointed by different presidents from different parties with different juridical philosophies.

The unanimous judgment of a three - man panel of the appeal court also dismissed the suit which Melaye had filed before the Federal High Court in Abuja to challenge the validity of the recall procourt also dismissed the suit which Melaye had filed before the Federal High Court in Abuja to challenge the validity of the recall proCourt in Abuja to challenge the validity of the recall process.

Governor Wike's election was confirmed by a unanimous judgement of a 7 - man panel of the Supreme court which upturned the ruling of the Appeal court and that of the lower tribunal which had nullified his election and ordered a rerun.

The five - man panel of the ape x court led by the Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onoghen, also, in a separate unanimous ruling, struck out all pending appeals relating to the candidacy of the PDP for the Saturday's governorship election in Ondo State.

However, in considering the main appeal, a panel of five Justices of the Supreme Court in a unanimous judgment today resolved all the issues against the appellant (Daudu) and accordingly dismissed the appeal in its entirety.

In a unanimous judgment delivered by the Justice Ibrahim Saulawa - led panel, the appeal court nullified the Certificate of Return issued to Miller by the Independent National Electoral Commission.

In a unanimous opinion on April 5, a three - judge panel of the San Francisco - based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reinstated a jury award that a federal magistrate judge threw out in 2002.

However, in a unanimous 2016 decision, a three - judge panel on California's Court of Appeals struck down the lower court ruling and the state Supreme Court declined to hear the Court of Appeals struck down the lower court ruling and the state Supreme Court declined to hear the court ruling and the state Supreme Court declined to hear the Court declined to hear the case.

So begins an opinion that a unanimous three - judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

What immediately jumped out at me was the rather pointed criticism aimed at the reasoning of the Quebec Court of Appeal — which, it should be noted, was a unanimous decision rendered by an expanded 5 - judge panel.

In allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the motions judge, a unanimous Court of Appeal panel accepted the appellant's argument that Rule 15.02 (4), a rule designed to terminate proceedings where a named plaintiff has not authorized commencement, had no applicappeal and setting aside the order of the motions judge, a unanimous Court of Appeal panel accepted the appellant's argument that Rule 15.02 (4), a rule designed to terminate proceedings where a named plaintiff has not authorized commencement, had no applicAppeal panel accepted the appellant's argument that Rule 15.02 (4), a rule designed to terminate proceedings where a named plaintiff has not authorized commencement, had no application.

In a short but forceful unanimous three panel decision, the Court of Appeal has rung the death knell for the term «crumbing skull» to describe physical and mental conditions that may deteriorate in the future (Gordon v. Ahn, 2017 BCCA 221).

Unanimous three - judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit holds unconstitutional a Missouri criminal statute that regulates advertising by businesses offering sexually explicit entertainment or materials: You can access today's ruling at this link.

In a unanimous decision released Sept 28, 2017, the Alberta Court of Appeal («ABCA») upheld a judicial review decision which found that the majority of a grievance arbitration panel («Majority Panel») had improperly decided that Suncor's random drug and alcohol testing policy was unenforcepanel («Majority Panel») had improperly decided that Suncor's random drug and alcohol testing policy was unenforcePanel») had improperly decided that Suncor's random drug and alcohol testing policy was unenforceable.

Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook quotes Yoda: At page 3 of this interesting decision that a unanimous three - judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued today.

Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton wrote yesterday's ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on behalf of a unanimous three - judge panel.

D.C. Circuit allows federal death row inmate to intervene in lawsuit challenging the federal government's method of carrying out lethal injections and its failure to disclose its execution procedures: You can access today's ruling of a unanimous three - judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.

Earlier this year, a 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals panel of three judges was unanimous in their refusal to have federal law apply to design defect allegations.

Most recently, in R v Oakes, 2016 ABCA 90, the case that is my topic here, the majority ruling of Justices Myra Bielby and Frederica Schutz, at para. 11, adopted the opinion in R v Truscott (2007), 225 CCC (3d) 321 (Ont CA) where a unanimous five member panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal stated, at para. 110, that the power to overturn a conviction founded in a miscarriage of justice, ``... can reach virtually any kind of error that renders the trial unfair in a procedural or substantive way.»

Our lawyers assisted in securing a victory at the court of first instance and persuaded a panel of judges at the Ontario Court of Appeal to uphold the decision on a unanimous bcourt of first instance and persuaded a panel of judges at the Ontario Court of Appeal to uphold the decision on a unanimous bCourt of Appeal to uphold the decision on a unanimous basis.

So begins an opinion that a unanimous three - judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.

«[T] he weight of authority suggests that accurate news reporting — even when it is likely to have an adverse impact on the subjects of the report — usually does not give rise to an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress»: Yesterday, a unanimous three - judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a decision affirming a federal district court's dismissal of claims for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress asserted by two former undercover police officers against a television station in Albuquerque that had revealed their identities and their undercover status in the context of a televised report about their suspected involvement in an alleged incident of sexual assCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a decision affirming a federal district court's dismissal of claims for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress asserted by two former undercover police officers against a television station in Albuquerque that had revealed their identities and their undercover status in the context of a televised report about their suspected involvement in an alleged incident of sexual asscourt's dismissal of claims for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress asserted by two former undercover police officers against a television station in Albuquerque that had revealed their identities and their undercover status in the context of a televised report about their suspected involvement in an alleged incident of sexual assault.

A unanimous three - judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit today issued an opinion holding that «state sovereign immunity is not a defense to this action.»

«I conclude that a reasonable person, knowing all the facts, would not think that it is more likely than not that this juror, whether consciously or unconsciously, would not have decided fairly,» wrote Court of Appeal Justice Lois Roberts for a unanimous three - judge panel.

The justices are reviewing a unanimous ruling from a three - judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco.