Sentences with phrase «valid facts in some cases»

Not exact matches

I will agree that an argument from majority is not always valid, but in this case I think it would be analogous to the fact that there is a small percentage of individuals who don't believe we went to the moon.

This is such a truism that one is almost ashamed to pen the words, and yet it remains a fact that, in a great deal of the more conservative biblical scholarship, it does seem to be assumed that the appeal to factual accuracy would he as valid and important a factor in the case of ancient Near Eastern religious texts as it would be in a modern western court of law or in a somewhat literally - minded western congregation.

In any case, the fact that I would benefit at all from my neighbour's bad fortune is a distasteful enough that I would never consider it a valid investment choice.

The natural cynacism that I have towards the «establishment» is a result of my experience in other cases — where, I now judge, I was being «sold to» rather than being presented with all of the facts — including valid arguments for the opposing view which may, at the very least, have suggested less certainty.

One such case is Don Easterbrook, whose testimony in front of a Washington State Committee in March 2013 so distorted the scientific facts that most of the members of his department (WWU geology) wrote a public letter, saying» [his views] are neither scientifically valid nor supported by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence on the topic».

What Article 28 (3) with its omission of public policy grounds seems to suggest in my view is that — to a certain extent — the mere fact of a 10 years residence has created a link between the EU citizen and the host Member State that is similar to the link between a national and its state; as a consequence expulsion can only be a valid means if this link is deliberately destroyed by the EU citizen; this would be the case of a serious security threat, i.e. an individual determined to engage in actions that jeopardize the security of the host Member State's society at large, which could indeed be the case of organized crime.

The case law to date has held that in order for the RCD to apply, all of the following requirements must be met: (i) there is valid provincial or federal legislation; (ii) conduct is legislatively mandated or authorized; (iii) the authority to regulate has in fact been exercised; and (iv) the regulated scheme has not been hindered or frustrated by the conduct (or used as a shield to engage in anti-competitive conduct).

Whilst the case does not in fact establish any new case law, it serves as a compelling reminder that the mutual trust and cooperation obligation does not require parties to act any differently under NEC3 than with other forms of construction contracts and should not be held as an axe to discourage a party in circumstances where it may have a valid claim.

The Bingham Centre makes the valid point that the fact that cases such as Al Rawi (allegations of rendition and torture by the security services which resulted in a large civil settlement) have meant courts ordering more disclosure from the security services may be more a result of policy changes by the security services than of judicial activism which needs to be reined in.

While the Respondent argued that the decision to proceed by special case was a discretionary one to which deference was owed, the Appellants argued that the special case was not appropriate because: the questions posed in the special case rested on a hypothetical assumption that the agreements were valid; necessary facts were not included and not all the facts were agreed upon by the parties; and the parties did not sign the statement of special case as required by Rule 9 - 3 (3)(c).

His lordship turned to the facts of the case and held that there was no scope for s 13 (9) to preclude the tenants from serving what was otherwise a valid s 13 notice in April 2006 and that notice, therefore, was a valid notice under s 13.

It is likely that under the correct facts and circumstances, a properly conceived and fairly written postnuptial agreement can be valid in case of a divorce.

But in the case of @Simon Stahl he stated he wants to remodel so in fact he has a valid reason although he is not required to have one.