Sentences with phrase «with judicial powers»

A referee is an officer with judicial powers who serves as an arm of the court.

Private and confidential dispute resolution process, which nevertheless provides the arbitrator with judicial power

This controversy is supposed to be brought before those vested with the judicial power of the United states.

Responding to Lord Justice Briggs» Civil Courts Structure Review, the ELA said that, while an online court may seem suitable for such claims at first glance, employment claims were «characterised by their complexity» and the «special nature» of the employee - employer relationship needed to be preserved where possible, with judicial power exercised sensitively.

Not exact matches

A meeting of the Supreme Court's party committee on Wednesday said China would draw boundaries with the West's notion of «judicial independence» and «separation of powers», the state - run China News Service said.

Among them are the rights to: bullet joint parenting; bullet joint adoption; bullet joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); bullet status as next - of - kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent; bullet joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; bullet dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support; bullet immigration and residency for partners from other countries; bullet inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; bullet joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment; bullet inheritance of jointly - owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); bullet benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; bullet spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home; bullet veterans» discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns; bullet joint filing of customs claims when traveling; bullet wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; bullet bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child; bullet decision - making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her; bullet crime victims» recovery benefits; bullet loss of consortium tort benefits; bullet domestic violence protection orders; bullet judicial protections and evidentiary immunity; bullet and more...

Readers of First Things should by now be well - acquainted with the heated national debate - in part inspired by these very pages - over the role and legitimacy of the modern Supreme Court, armed with the power of judicial review, in a country that proclaims itself to be self - governing.

A complex modern democracy is at a serious disadvantage in dealing with autocratic states as well as in expeditiously conducting its own internal affairs, unless it possesses strong executive powers which are not hedged about in matters of detailed policy and administration by legislative and judicial agencies.

Even Court watchers who favored legislative liberalization of abortion law were inclined to agree with dissenting Justice Byron White that the case represented an extraordinary judicial power grab.

Unconscionable conduct (agrees with NFF that they have not provided protection and support reforms «to provide transparency in the supply chain» and recognise that «certain classes of suppliers... are predisposed to suffering from a special disadvantage...»; misuse of market power (legal framework must «level the balance of market power in negotiations...», «ensure transparency in the transmission of market prices» and «not allow for final market risks to be borne by the primary producer» and provide «transparency of contract processes» - specifically, Canegrowers supports effects test and a process giving ACCC greater power to «regulate anti-competitive behaviour and impose penalties», shifting «the decisions framework from the judicial system to a regulatory system» which would make it more accessible to small producers); collective bargaining (notes limits of Sugar Industry Act (Qld); authorisation and notification approval costly and limited and not a viable alternative - peak bodies should be able to «commence and progress collective bargaining with mills on behalf of their members» and current threshold too restrictive)» competitive neutrality (mixed outcomes - perverse outcomes in the case of natural monopolies - suggest remove «application of competitive neutrality provisions to natural monopoly essential services»)

Soon after the new IPAct was introduced, Liberty, a British organisation concerned with human rights protection, requested a judicial review to the High Court.Liberty argued that some powers protected by the Act such as the interception of communication, acquisition of communication history and the creation of bulk personal datasets breached the public's rights.

In the last years, EU have faced several cases of countries with judicial independence issues and I am wondering if there is a connection between party in power ideology and judicial independence / rule of law issues.

Speaking to Accra - based Joy FM, Sefa Kayi said politicians who do wrong with impunity incite ordinary Ghanaians against judicial powers of state.

With the adoption of the Charter, Erie County established a traditional form of legislative, executive and judicial separation of powers which is common to all other levels of government.

In all the other Cases before mentioned [within the judicial power of the United States], the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.»

So - called liberal MPs voted en masse, with just one exception, to scrap powers which held the executive to account when they supported Chris Grayling's reform of judicial review.

This vesting clause, along with the Executive and Judicial Branches deliniates a clear separation of powers in the federal government.

clauses (2) and (3) of the 1992 Constitution, the Judicial Council had a constitutional obligation to specifically advise the President as to which specific person (s) is / are suitable for appointment to serve as Justice (s) of the Superior Courts of Judicature, in accordance with which advice the President is mandatorily required to exercise his powers of appointment.

One week after announcing they were exploring the option of requesting a judicial injunction, Assemblyman Ronald Castorina and Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis filed a brief against the city, arguing that expunging the files of the IDNYC program would violate the state's Freedom of Information Law — which explicitly forbids the destruction of documents «with intent to prevent public inspection» — and would overstep the city's legal powers.

According to the source, some of the lawyers with whom the President had consulted were said to have said the party had no judicial power to interpret the Nigerian Constitution to the effect that any Nigerian would be denied his or her right to contest.

The government's exact motives are unclear, but most scientists see it as one more power grab, following replacement of many judicial and military officials with political appointees in the past year.

That doctrine, he wrote, permits «executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers» design.

Power of sale foreclosure can occur much more quickly than judicial foreclosure because the trustee vested with the power of sale does not need court oversight to sell the propPower of sale foreclosure can occur much more quickly than judicial foreclosure because the trustee vested with the power of sale does not need court oversight to sell the proppower of sale does not need court oversight to sell the property.

This writer pointed out that their semantic dodge was a distinction without a difference, and that despite their dissimulation, everything they proposed screamed «global government,» with global legislative, executive, judicial, and policing powers.

The only enquiries with sufficient powers to address the questions of the integrity of the science are judicial or congressional (parliamentary) enquiries.

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.

And we beg leave to add with all due deference that no decision of any court of the United States can under any circumstances, in our opinion, agreeable to the Constitution, be liable to a reversion or even suspension by the legislature itself, in whom no judicial power of any kind appears to be vested but the important one relative to impeachments.»

Such revision and control we deemed radically inconsistent with the independence of that judicial power which is vested in the courts, and consequently with that important principle which is so strictly observed by the Constitution of the United States.»

Does the practice of deferring to agency interpretations of statutes comport with Article VII, Section 2 of the Wisconsin Constitution, which vests the judicial power in the unified court system?

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 Court was in this case probably not really confronted with an «uncontrollable centre of power» considering the procedural and substantive checks and balances imposed in the regulation as well as the possibility of judicial review by the Court and therefore did not see the need to annul a regulation that itself tried to curb an uncontrollable centre of power: the financial markets.

An application for judicial review was filed Sept. 1 with the Divisional Court of the Ontario Superior Court on behalf of all members of the Anishinaabe Nation in Treaty 3 against the Ontario minister of Energy and the Ontario Power Authority.

The Model Penal Code: Sentencing project provides guidance on some of the most important issues that courts, corrections systems, and policymakers are facing today, including the general purposes of the sentencing system; rules governing sentence severity — including sentences of incarceration, community supervision, and economic penalties; the elimination of mandatory minimum penalties; mechanisms for combating racial and ethnic disparities in punishment; instruments of prison population control; victims» rights in the sentencing process; the sentencing of juvenile offenders in adult courts; the creation of judicial powers to review many collateral consequences of conviction; and many issues having to do with judicial sentencing discretion, sentencing commissions, sentencing guidelines, and appellate sentence review.

Judges, protective of their judicial independence, were concerned that a chief judge, with added administrative powers, might be tempted to micro-manage 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.

Nigel regularly deals with applications under the Arbitration Act 1996, such as applications to stay legal proceedings, for the appointment / removal of arbitrators, for the exercise of judicial powers in support of arbitral proceedings, and for the correction of awards, as well as appeals from arbitration awards on points of law and challenges to awards for want of jurisdiction or on grounds of serious procedural irregularity.

On a judicial review, the Da» naxda» xw / Awaetlala First Nation («DAFN») sought an order requiring that British Columbia's Minister of Energy, Mines and Natural Gas (the «Minister») direct BC Hydro to enter into good faith negotiations with DAFN and Kleana Power Corporation...

Historically, architects expressed judicial power by building massive neoclassical temples decorated with inspirational quotations and noble statuary.

As noted in Part I, the notion of transparency has long been entangled with the integrity of the justice system, as the democratic legitimization of judicial power flows from the public's collective confidence in the legal system as an impartial and independent arbiter of rights.

Such privative or ouster clauses have often been treated with a degree of contempt by the courts particularly if they are seen as an attempt to exclude the supervisory powers by way of judicial review of the superior courts over administrative action.

As it relates to s. 1, it is worth noting, that its impact on judicial power has been mitigated because as with every section of the Charter, the operational meaning of s. 1 was subject to judicial definition.

Mr. Sirota sees «democratic process failures» as providing judges with «the reason» to invoke the power of judicial review, and suggests that the presence of a failure could obviate the need for judicial deference.

And «If ostensible democratic societies are to persist with judicial review, then a variety of steps can be taken — reduced judicial powers, specialized constitutional courts, responsive appointment procedures, legislative overrides, greater judicial accountability, periodic constituent assembles, etc. — to de-sacralize and defrost the constitutional order.

Its other recommendations include: greater judicial case management, with specialist judges and early intervention; agreement on circumstances in which parties might lose costs protection; drawing up realistic budgets; and allowing the courts to continue to exercise cost - capping powers.

Traditionally, the constitutional separation of powers ensures that the executive does not interfere, nor can it be perceived as interfering with judicial processes.

The Ohio Senate yesterday approved a plan (SJR 1) to create a Public Office Compensation Commission with the power to reduce judicial salaries mid-term in cases of fiscal emergency, a departure from a 2014 proposal which would have allowed them to be diminished for any reason.

It is true, that the courts of justice of the United States are vested, by express statute provision, with power to fine and imprison for contempts; but it does not follow, from this circumstance, that they would not have exercised that power without the aid of the statute, or not, in cases, if such should occur, to which such statute provision may not extend; on the contrary, it is a legislative assertion of this right, as incidental to a grant of judicial power, and can only be considered either as an instance of abundant caution, or a legislative declaration, that the power

Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial.

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.