Sentences with phrase «using judicial powers»

NJC's Director of Information; Soji Oye, said Justice Umezulike was accused of wantonly abusing priviledges of his office and using judicial powers to terrorise petitioners and defendants.

According to NBCW, the pope's emphasis on mercy in the document, «The Gentle Judge, our Lord Jesus, the Shepherd of Souls», is central to the new procedures which help reduce the time taken to process a case, and assist diocesan bishops to use their judicial power for the good of those in their care.

I consider, therefore, that, when there was a plea to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in a case brought here by a writ of error, the first duty of this court is sua sponte, if not moved to it by either party, to examine the sufficiency of that plea, and thus to take care that neither the Circuit Court nor this court shall use the judicial power of the United States in a case to which the Constitution and laws of the United States have not extended that power.

Not exact matches

In appropriate cases, small business owners who have been victims of crime can use the power of the criminal judicial system to recover financial losses at little or no additional expense.

Impeachment is a use of something like judicial power by the legislative branch.

The power of judicial review was shown when campaigners used it to scrap the prison book ban.

Related: Why has the Supreme Court of the United States not used its power of judicial review to audit constitutionally - questionable laws like the Patriot Act?

Since 1997, by contrast, we have seen successive governments use a simple parliamentary majority to radically overhaul the structure of the judicial system; strip the office of Lord Chancellor of most of its historic authority; introduce fixed - term parliaments and devolve substantial legislative powers to selected parts of the United Kingdom.

That is a remarkable use of the «awesome power» of judicial review.»

By contrast, a legislator can influence the outcome of cases either by changing laws and overriding a judicial decision, or using his or her power to approve judicial nominees who will produce the desired outcomes.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Alaska injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

Rule 9.100 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure states that a party may file a petition for writ of prohibition in an appellate court to prevent a lower tribunal from the improper use of judicial power.

For example, a casual perusal of the online legal research service Westlaw reveals that «mumbo jumbo» appears at least 251 times in judicial opinions.8 «Jibber - jabber» shows up just seven times (although surprisingly used by parties, rather than in statements from the court), while the more prosaic «gobbledygook» has 126 hits in the legal database.9 Believed to have been coined in 1944 by U.S. Rep. Maury Maverick of Texas, «gobbledygook» has been used by everyone from political figures referring to bureaucratic doublespeak (for example, President Ronald Reagan's stinging 1985 indictment of tax law revisions as «cluttered with gobbledygook and loopholes designed for those with the power and influence to have high - priced legal and tax advisers») to judges decrying the indecipherable arguments and pleadings of the lawyers practicing before them.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Georgia injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

References to literature in judicial opinions, like metaphors and similes, derive their power from surprise; therefore, if used frequently, they lose their novelty, like the oft - repeated punch line of an outdated joke.

A libel case, like all lawsuits, involves the government's judicial branch using its coercive power to make you pay money as a result of your speech, based on a law requiring you to pay money for certain kinds of speech.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Tennessee injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Missouri injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a California injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

The motion was denied by the Southern District of New York and affirmed by the Second Circuit, but the Second Circuit noted that the issues raised had «considerable resonance because the fairness and integrity of the courts can be compromised by inadequate constraint on a monitor's aggressive use of judicial power.»

«The Committee's review of Judge Roberts's writings and public statements, however, has raised concerns about the impact of Judge Roberts's judicial philosophy in three broad areas essential to women's rights: (1) the use of state and federal power, (2) laws that have a substantial impact on women, and (3) federal laws intended to protect against discrimination based on sex.»

Of what use would it be for the legislature to declare these combinations unlawful if the judicial power may close the door of access to every available source of information upon the subject?

Our only judicial power in the case arises from the conflicting claims of the parties to the church property and the use of it.

Proceedings for judicial review have been brought in the High Court of Justice in London before The Lord Chief Justice, The Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Sales in order to obtain a declaration from the Court on whether, under UK constitutional laws, the Government can lawfully use prerogative powers to give notification to the EU under art. 50 of the Lisbon Treaty without the Parliament's formal authorisation.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a North Carolina injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

Writing for the majority, Rothstein J. (himself a former judicial member of the Competition Tribunal) noted that «[t] he concern under the «prevention» branch of s. 92 is that a firm with market power will use a merger to prevent competition that could otherwise arise in a contestable market.»

Here is an interesting case about judicial review of regulations with, in the background, a hint that regulatory power was used to hinder an emerging business model Sobeys West Inc. v. College of Pharmacists of British Columbia, 2014 BCSC 1414.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, No. 15 - 1406 (SCOTUS April 18, 2017), clarified the standard to be used by district judges in imposing «inherent power of the court to control judicial process» sanctions as far as setting an appropriate amount of sanctions, reversing a $ 2.7 million sanctions award in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Goodyear after a case was settled.

He acted for HMRC in Proteus and Samarkand v HMRC -LRB-[2017] EWCA Civ 77), a judicial review challenge to tax decisions taken on film finance schemes; in Eastenders v HMRC [2014] UKSC 34, [2014] 2 WLR 1580 (which concerned the for use of the power to detain goods under section 139 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979); and in European Brand Trading v HMRC [2016] EWCA Civ 90 (as to the jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal to determine whether seizure of goods for non-payment of excise duty was lawful).

It is apparent from this wording that the UN Security Council is endowed with a power to make determinations of fact (which in practice are unlikely to be susceptible to judicial review before the International Court of Justice), which in turn may trigger resolutions authorising the use of force, and otherwise binding upon all UN member states.

Likewise the (non) possibility for individuals to challenge regulations before the CJEU, the right of action (and rule of law) principle can not circumvene the Treaties: the issue is that the CJEU stated that judicial review on CFPS is a matter «within» the sphere of EU Treaties, so that MS (and EU Institutions) can not take action which may impact on them by using «outside» procedures; the rationale is the same used in other cases: if the matter is covered by EU law, absence of a specific rule in EU law does not enable MS (or the Institutions) to act: in the Advice on the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction, the mere indirect effect of the Convention of the 44/2001 Regulation was considered sufficient to make the matter fall «wholly» within EU competence, thus depriving the MS of the power to act.

So an interesting problem that maybe our judicial (and former judicial) members can enlighten us on is — why judges almost NEVER use the powers that they have long possessed to sanction lawyers under Rule 11 — or more modestly, simply require them to bear the costs for unjustified litigation costs that they have imposed on others with arguments that are not substantially justified under 28 U.S.C. 1927?

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a foreign injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

In practice, however, the use of this inherent judicial power has been generally supplanted by formal statutory processes that allow clients to have their lawyers» accounts reviewed by non-judicial assessment officers or court registrars.

Based on these earlier cases, the Court concluded that past precedent supported judicial deference to legislative judgments on what constituted a sufficient public good justifying the use of the takings power.

The two ways different states use to foreclose upon a property are: judicial sale or power of sale.