Sentences with phrase «very issue before the court»

In Justice LeBel's view, the inadmissible evidence went to the very issue before the court — the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Not exact matches

The court was very concerned about this issue, but found the issue of whether the AG was failing to enforce against seasonal fantasy sports was not yet squarely before the court — but it will be.

I am of the thinking that on the very day Brexit comes into effect, and except where it has formally been agreed during the negotiations on certain issues and matters to benefit both the UK and the EU, the UK should no longer be subjected to comply or obey any standing Laws passed before and later by the EU court of justuce after Brexit has come into effect.

The emails Cuomo sent yesterday give a very early clue to an argument he would likely make if he indeed decides to take a step onto the national stage: Under my leadership, New York led the nation on touchstone progressive issues, not only becoming the largest state in the country (before the US Supreme Court Prop. 8 decision) to legalize gay marriage, but also the first to act on gun control in the wake of the horrific Newtown massacre.

It is very desirable that these issues are addressed by statute, before the courts are dragged into Parliamentary proceedings in a way which would further damage relations between politicians and the senior judiciary.

INEC said: «Before concluding, we crave the indulgence of the court to very respectfully refer to an intriguing issue.

The very same issue was argued before the Supreme Court just two years ago in Friedrichs v. CTA, but when Justice Scalia died shortly after oral arguments, that case was left unresolved.

Make no mistake — the Supreme Court's decision was unprecedented (the court had never before issued a stay on a pending agency rule before letting lower courts weigh in on the merits) and very unfortuCourt's decision was unprecedented (the court had never before issued a stay on a pending agency rule before letting lower courts weigh in on the merits) and very unfortucourt had never before issued a stay on a pending agency rule before letting lower courts weigh in on the merits) and very unfortunate.

It is likely to be a very long time indeed before the UK court system and practitioners feel any impact arising from this issue.

There's a current case before the Supreme Court (argued January 9, 2018), Byrd v. US, on this very issue.

The reasons given by the Divisional Court for its decision, on the other issues that were fully argued before it, appear to be very cogent.

He introduced the case by putting the issue very simply «The question before this Court concerns the steps which are required as a matter of UK domestic law before the process of leaving the European Union can be initiated.»

As I suggested before, Congress could at the very least hold hearings to explore the medical matters at issue in all the piecemeal litigation now taking place in state and federal courts nationwide.

Thus, Grayson made the very technical argument that, since there was no actual controversy before the court, the court lacked the power to issue a binding opinion.

To the extent that Palmer suggests a generally applicable proposition that legislative purpose is irrelevant in constitutional adjudication, our prior cases — as indicated in the text — are to the contrary; and, very shortly after Palmer, all Members of the Court majority in that case joined the Court's opinion in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971), which dealt with the issue of public financing for private schools and which announced, as the Court had several times before, that the validity of public aid to church - related schools includes close inquiry into the purpose of the challenged statute.

The UK Supreme Court decided two very interesting immigration cases the week before last, touching on two very interesting issues.The first issue was whether the royal prerogative in respect of immigration control had been ousted by the Immigration Act, 1971.

Knowing that the alienating parent does not have the ability to foster a relationship between the child and the target parent, the issue before the court will be, does the target parent offer the child sufficient parenting capacity to outweigh that very serious harm.