Sentences with phrase «with judicial enforcement»

I'm highly uncomfortable with judicial enforcement of the performance of a very personal religious obligation, even when it arises from contract.

Not exact matches

In March, the board took the unusual step of filing its latest decision with the Federal Court for judicial enforcement because it expected CP to ignore its orders.

But that record does not reveal Mr. Greenberg's other run - ins with law enforcement and the judicial system, which are not required to be disclosed to Finra.

Alschuler points out that the «bad man» whose perspective was decisive for Holmes does not really care about predicting judicial decisions as much as he cares about what the law enforcement agencies will do if he tries to get away with a crime.

The statement added, «The EFCC boss expressed concern over the delay usually experienced in dispensing corruption cases and the conspiracy (in some cases) between the criminals and judicial workers / law enforcement agents to make violators of law escape justice, citing the case of a former governor of Adamawa State, Bala Ngilari, who was set free with the connivance of a prison warder and court registrar after being convicted by court.»

«Public Officers Law 87 (2)(e)(i) prohibits making available for public inspection and copying all records that would interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings,» read a March 3 denial letter from Miner's corporation counsel.

The AG's FOIL lawyers say that release of the material could interfere with a law enforcement probe or a judicial proceeding.

This session offers ideas and strategies to serve our most at - risk children and youth through partnerships with school districts, law enforcement, juvenile justice providers, and judicial systems.

Law enforcement plays a key role in our success, and NHTSA will continue to develop and support traffic safety champions within law enforcement agencies, promote innovative approaches (such as the Data Driven Approach to Crime and Traffic Safety, or DDACTS), share crash data analytics, support statewide electronic traffic violation warning systems, and work with State and regional judicial and prosecutorial officials.

We may disclose the information we collect from and about you as follows: (1) with Green Dot subsidiaries and affiliated companies; (2) to our third party service providers that provide business, professional or technical support functions for us; (3) as necessary if we believe that there has been a violation of the Site Terms of Use or of our rights or the rights of any third party; (4) to respond to judicial process or provide information to law enforcement or regulatory agencies or in connection with an investigation on matters related to public safety, as permitted by law, or otherwise as required by law; and (5) as described to you at the point of collection.

A veterinarian who is licensed in another state, and who is in good standing in such state, providing services directly in connection with an investigation by law enforcement of an alleged violation of federal or state animal fighting or animal cruelty laws, within the scope of the investigation and / or any related judicial proceedings, subject to the following requirements: (a) an official invitation has been extended to the veterinarian for a specified period of time by the law enforcement authority with jurisdiction over the investigation; and (b) such law enforcement authority determines that the veterinarian possesses skills, training, or experience necessary and relevant to such investigation of alleged incidents of animal fighting or animal cruelty.

A technician who is licensed in another state, and who is in good standing in such state, providing veterinary technology services otherwise permissible pursuant to this article directly in connection with an investigation by law enforcement of an alleged violation of federal or state animal fighting or animal cruelty laws, within the scope of the investigation and / or any related judicial proceedings, subject to the following requirements: (a) an official invitation has been extended to the technician for a specified period of time by the law enforcement authority with jurisdiction over the investigation; and (b) such law enforcement authority determines that the technician possesses skills, training, or experience necessary and relevant to such investigation of alleged incidents of animal fighting or animal cruelty.

Koch Media may also disclose personal data to law enforcement, or the appropriate civil authorities to enforce legal rights and comply with the law, or to comply with an order from a government entity or other competent authority, or when we have reason to believe that a disclosure is necessary to address potential or actual injury or interference with our rights, property, reputation, operations, users or others who may be harmed or may suffer loss or damage, or when we believe that disclosure is necessary to protect our rights, fraud protection and / or comply with a judicial proceeding, court order, or legal process served on Koch Media.

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.

The lawfulness or scope of a notice or subpoena from a law enforcement authority may be challenged in the Irish courts through judicial review proceedings, unless it is possible to reach a compromise with the law enforcement agency on the scope of the notice.

Because JAMS provides alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that operate in accordance with judicial procedures, we may also deny or limit access to personal data in the following contexts: (i) interference with law enforcement or with private causes of action, including the prevention, investigation or detection of offenses or the right to a fair trial, arbitration or mediation; (ii) disclosure where the legitimate rights or important interests of others would be violated; (iii) breaching a legal or other professional privilege or obligation; (iv) prejudicing employee security investigations or grievance proceedings or in connection with employee succession planning and corporate reorganizations; or (v) prejudicing the confidentiality necessary in monitoring, inspection or regulatory functions connected with sound management, or in future or ongoing negotiations involving JAMS.

Justice Moldaver then turns to what is described as practical considerations for law enforcement and the administration of justice, at paras. 183 - 6, suggesting that (a) the disclosure of text messages received by a complainant could be challenged by a sender who is alleged to have abused the complainant and thus exposes vulnerable complainants such as children, people with mental disabilities and the elderly (b) the increased need for warrants could strain police and judicial resources in an overburdened criminal justice system and (c) at the trial stage, these repercussions could complicate and prolong proceedings where defendants have standing to challenge searches conducted against collateral targets in large prosecutions.

[7] While excluding judicial decisions and arbitral awards will limit the number of parties served by the instrument, the working group considered it best to avoid «overlap» with other conventions and minimize confusion among enforcement authorities over which instrument applies, although the final wording of this provision remains to be determined.

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.

Nonetheless, she envisages less governance problems in the case of EU competition law enforcement by the CJEU and national courts, since «theories of integrity in judicial reasoning suggest deeply embedded tendencies to prefer solutions that are coherent with the legal system at issue, and -LRB-...) its underlying constitutional and moral values.»

Unfortunately, the Court's mis - direction on the judicial reasoning protecting private life rights and sexual identity started by Dudgeon, is a shortcoming of the judgment, as the Court fails to engage with the impact that mere criminalisation has on gay and lesbian individuals, even without enforcement.

A wiretap authorization is the appropriate judicial order that requires law enforcement to establish investigative necessity (with some exceptions) in addition to probable cause.

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.

A. 20 In effect, this means that whilst decisions of the DSB create an obligation on the part of the losing party to comply with WTO rules, enforcement can be achieved by various means — including amicable settlement, compensation, or the suspension of trade concessions.101 Indeed, it was for this reason that the CJEU found in the case of Portugal v Council that a DSB decision did not oblige the losing party to achieve full implementation of its recommendations, where the possibility of temporary compensation or retaliatory measures remained available.102 In other words, the outcome was prescribed, but not the means.103 This contrasts with the position under EU law, where there is a right to an effective remedy from a judicial body.

With the Constitutionalization of judicial review as a central feature of the role of the superior courts in the guarantee and enforcement of the rule of law, it may be time for the legal evolution of judicial review / tribunal appeals to reach the stage of a comprehensive rationalization.

2d (W.D. Wisc. 2007): The district court enjoined enforcement of the provision of Wisconsin's Code of Judicial Conduct which required judges to recuse themselves if they had, while a judge or candidate for judicial office, previously made statements that «appear [ed] to commit» the judge with respect to an issue in a proJudicial Conduct which required judges to recuse themselves if they had, while a judge or candidate for judicial office, previously made statements that «appear [ed] to commit» the judge with respect to an issue in a projudicial office, previously made statements that «appear [ed] to commit» the judge with respect to an issue in a proceeding.

Collaborate with colleagues in the Home Office, other Government departments, law enforcement and with overseas stakeholders to agree solutions and deliver judicial cooperation.

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.

Unless the parties agree otherwise, the parties, the arbitrator and JW will treat the arbitral proceedings, any related disclosures and / or discovery, and the decisions of the arbitrator, as confidential, except in connection with judicial proceedings ancillary to the arbitration, such as a judicial challenge to, or enforcement of, an award, or unless otherwise required by law or to protect a legal right of a party.

Judicial Tribunal for the Dubai Courts and DIFC Courts awards Dubai Courts jurisdiction in «conduit» cases: The Judicial Tribunal for the Dubai Courts and the DIFC Courts, established in 2016 to rule on conflicts of jurisdiction and conflicts of judgments between the two courts, has issued two recent decisions in cases where claimants obtained an order from the DIFC Courts recognising arbitral awards made outside the DIFC, where there was no connection with the DIFC, and where the order recognising the award was referred for enforcement to the Dubai courts for enforcement against assets located there.

Under enforcement the firm has dealt with issues ranging from judicial and non-judicial foreclosure to issues of monetary and non-monetary default, acceleration to legal and contractual lien, priority of creditors to transfer, enforcement of foreign judgments and conflict of law issues.

Legalize and Regulate Marijuana WHEREAS, despite almost a century of prohibition, millions of Canadians today regularly consume marijuana and other cannabis products; WHEREAS the failed prohibition of marijuana has exhausted countless billions of dollars spent on ineffective or incomplete enforcement and has resulted in unnecessarily dangerous and expensive congestion in our judicial system; WHEREAS various marijuana decriminalization or legalization policy prescriptions have been recommended by the 1969 - 72 Commission of Enquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, the 2002 Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, and the 2002 House of Commons Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs; WHEREAS the legal status quo for the criminal regulation of marijuana continues to endanger Canadians by generating significant resources for gang - related violent criminal activity and weapons smuggling — a reality which could be very easily confronted by the regulation and legitimization of Canada's marijuana industry; BE IT RESOLVED that a new Liberal government will legalize marijuana and ensure the regulation and taxation of its production, distribution, and use, while enacting strict penalties for illegal trafficking, illegal importation and exportation, and impaired driving; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a new Liberal government will invest significant resources in prevention and education programs designed to promote awareness of the health risks and consequences of marijuana use and dependency, especially amongst youth; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a new Liberal government will extend amnesty to all Canadians previously convicted of simple and minimal marijuana possession, and ensure the elimination of all criminal records related thereto; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a new Liberal government will work with the provinces and local governments of Canada on a coordinated regulatory approach to marijuana which maintains significant federal responsibility for marijuana control while respecting provincial health jurisdiction and particular regional concerns and practices.

Mr. Chisolm worked as a judicial intern for the Honorable Alexander Williams Jr. in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, and as a legal intern for the Division of Enforcement and Neighborhood Services with the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development.

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.

«so unyielding as to require enforcement of an agreement to arbitrate a dispute over the application of a regulatory statute which a state legislature, in conformity with analogous federal policy, has decided should be left to judicial enforcement.»

The new § 164.512 includes paragraphs on: Uses and disclosures required by law; uses and disclosures for public health activities; disclosures about victims of abuse, neglect, or domestic violence; uses and disclosures for health oversight activities; disclosures for judicial and administrative proceedings; disclosures for law enforcement purposes; uses and disclosures about decedents; uses and disclosures for cadaveric donation of organs, eyes, or tissues; uses and disclosures for research purposes; uses and disclosures to avert a serious threat to health or safety (which we had called «emergency circumstances» in the NPRM); uses and disclosures for specialized government functions (referred to as «specialized classes» in the NPRM); and disclosures to comply with workers» compensation laws.

The only exception is where disclosure is required by a court, necessary in connection with a judicial challenge or enforcement of an award or otherwise required by law.

Though we make every effort to preserve user privacy, we may need to disclose personal information when required by law wherein we have a good - faith belief that such action is necessary to comply with an appropriate law enforcement investigation, current judicial proceeding, a court order, or legal process served on our website, or as required by law.

we work hand - in - hand with law enforcement and the judicial system.

Enforcement: If a member fails to comply with an award or the terms of a mediated settlement agreement, the recipient to whom the award has been rendered by the arbitration panel or the beneficiary of a settlement agreement reached by the parties in mediation, shall be advised by the panel to seek judicial enforcement and request reimbursement of all legal costs incurred in seeking such eEnforcement: If a member fails to comply with an award or the terms of a mediated settlement agreement, the recipient to whom the award has been rendered by the arbitration panel or the beneficiary of a settlement agreement reached by the parties in mediation, shall be advised by the panel to seek judicial enforcement and request reimbursement of all legal costs incurred in seeking such eenforcement and request reimbursement of all legal costs incurred in seeking such enforcementenforcement.