Sentences with phrase «what superior court»

Upward Deviation in Child Support in Arizona to Match Children's Lifestyle The Arizona Court of Appeals in a memorandum decision in the case of Bowe vs. Vogel had to decide what a superior court must do in order to award a deviation above the amount set forth in the Arizona Child Support Guidelines.

In the Federal Court system, prothonotaries — full judicial officers who exercise many of the powers and functions of judges — are employed, at a pay rate of about 70 per cent of what superior court judges make.

Not exact matches

If you did not will to impose what you feel is your superior morality in the courts and in legislature then you can most certainly frolic in the tulips of your mind, but until then, you are the enemy.

There is no source of law which confers such a right on any court, no matter what men call it (superior or inferior).

The superior court reversed the order and determined that no reasonable person could have concluded a risk to the public based on what the court identified as insufficient evidence.

A judge of a superior court is not liable for anything done by him while he is «acting as a judge,» or «doing a judicial act» or «acting judicially» or «in the execution of his office»... «What do all these mean?

«What is the test upon which the judges of the superior courts are thus immune from liability for damages even though they are acting without jurisdiction?

In cases where confidentiality of sensitive information is a concern, erring on the side of caution is important since, unlike superior courts, which can prevent misuse of confidential information through court order, professional regulatory bodies have no express power to control what complainants do with information once in their possession.

It was premised on the fact that, while we know that only approximately 2 % of superior court cases go to trial, we know very little about what happens to the other 98 % of filed cases.

This protection is broad: in December 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada (in British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal v. Schrenk) confirmed what many employment law lawyers already believed: the human rights law obligation of a «person» not to discriminate in employment prohibits discrimination against employees whenever that discrimination has a sufficient connection to employment; it's not limited to discrimination by their superiors.

I'm going to explain and show for the next one they issue me, but I just wondered on the side if these «impose [d] monetary sanctions» were regulated because I called the number at the bottom of the superior court notice and the lady who answered seemed like she didn't know what the cost for such an «offense» was, but stated that if I sent $ 100 check to them, that would do it, which seemed arbitrary and suspicious; i.e., the whole first not knowing and then coming up with a round figure.

[w] e must hope that, in light of the problems presented by such an expansive view of superior courts» inherent jurisdiction, in future cases the Supreme Court will be very careful in broadening its interpretation of what constitutes an infringement of section 96.

Similarly, when a lawyer's online activity belies what he's told his superiors or the court, trouble can follow.

As a family law practitioner, you have the ability to refer your clients to an education program that is superior to what the court orders — allowing your clients and their children to expe... Read more