We must call upon our the Senate to act reasonably and without partisanship.
|
|
" Therefore Freeman said "Officer Noor did not act reasonably and abused his authority to use deadly force.
|
|
"There are different judges who would have found that Officer Nero did not act reasonably," Colbert said.
|
|
"Will-Rights" then come to be considered as "the power to act," not as the power to act reasonably.
|
|
In an interview with newspaper Israel Hayom last week, he urged Israel to act "reasonably" in the Middle East peace process.
|
|
"The jury found that the defendant did not act reasonably or responsibly," Circuit Judge Joseph Bulone said at the sentencing, per NBC News.
|
|
If the Fed is going to act reasonably and rationally, I think we'll go - I think we are a rocket ship going up.
|
|
"If you act reasonably, as any reasonable person would respond, you will not be at fault to save a life," Nashville Fire Department Chief of Staff Mike Franklin told WKRN.
|
|
Spain will act reasonably in the U.K.'s Brexit negotiations with the European Unioin, Economy Minister Luis de Guindos told CNBC at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Wednesday.
|
|
However, those potential sellers surveyed are not demonstrating desperation in their views, so as long as both sides come to the table and act reasonably and responsibly we expect considerable middle market deal activity in 2016.
|
|
The lawyers note that Snapchat has a "responsibility to act reasonably to take steps to eliminate risks associated with their products," which it failed to do because it has not removed or restricted the speed filter yet.
|
|
In an interview published in February in the Hebrew edition of Israel Hayom, a newspaper considered supportive of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, Mr. Trump said he wanted Israel "to act reasonably," after a series of Israeli moves to approve thousands of housing units for new settlers.
|
|
"Companies that act reasonably in helping rights holders identify and control the use of their content shouldn't be held liable for anything a user uploads, any more than a telephone company should be liable for the content of conversations," Google's Senior Vice President of global affairs Kent Walker wrote in a blog post in February.
|
|
Self-awareness or self-conscious is the innate capacity of human beings to be more sensitive of their environment with what they encounter and experience. Individuals' have the natural ability to act reasonably towards certain situations as they know what the situation is and its consequences. Imagination is of individual minds where thoughts beyond real life occurrences and situations take place. Individuals make sense of their environment and world through their natural ability to imagine beyond reality.
|
|
CBC News, The National, November 23, 2010 BBBs have been accused of unduly protecting companies. If a branch does not act reasonably on behalf of a consumer, a complaint may be filed with the Federal Trade Commission. Moreover, recent reports have suggested that the Austin chapter of the Better Business Bureau refused to resolve complaints against companies if customers do not pay a $70 mediation fee. Additionally, while the BBB publishes names of corporations, it withholds the names of individuals lodging complaints.
|
|
The High Court unanimously allowed the appeal, rejecting the respondent's arguments. By majority, Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane and Nettle JJ rejected Banerji's argument that the impugned provisions could not extent to 'anonymous' communications. They then held that the provisions did not impose an unjustified burden on the implied freedom, and that the termination of the respondent's employment was not unlawful. Finally, the court held that the implied freedom was not a mandatory consideration for the decision maker, as the law was both constitutional, and it already contained a requirement that the decision maker act reasonably.
|
|
When a voluntarily accepted risk leads to an involuntary injury there must be evidence of someone either doing something that they should not have done or not doing something that they should have done before a claim for damages can succeed. A large proportion of cases are litigated due to uncertainty of the cause of the accident. The history of appeal cases in the USA tend to rule that the buddy relationship creates a duty to act reasonably and not increase the risks associated with diving. The existence of damages can usually be proven though the amount may be contested.
|
|
ERG had a contract with the New South Wales Public Transport Ticketing Corporation (PTTC) to develop the Tcard system. The contract was terminated by the New South Wales government on 23 January 2008, and the government announced their intention to recover the project costs of $90 million from ERG. ERG claimed that the PTTC "had itself materially contributed to the delays associated with the project and ... failed to act reasonably and in good faith", and lodged a countersuit in May 2008 to recover over $215 million in costs. The NSW government was allowed to withhold some evidence in the case.
|
|
It was clear, in light of this, that the feeding of the patient did not serve the purpose of supporting human life (as judged by the legal convictions of the society), and that "the applicant, if appointed as curatrix, would act reasonably and would be justified in discontinuing the artificial feeding and would therefore not be acting wrongfully if she were to do so,"569B-C. even if death were to ensue. Although "her conduct would not be justifiable in law on any of the grounds of justification ('regverdigingsgronde'),"650H. That is to say, it would be wrongful and unlawful.
|
|
Depending upon the intent or negligence of a responsible party, the injured party may be entitled to monetary compensation from that party through a settlement or a judgment. Although personal injury cases may result from an intentional act, such as defamation, or from reckless conduct, most personal injury claims are based on a theory of negligence. To hold a party or parties legally liable for injuries so damages based upon negligence, four elements must be proved: # The party had a duty to act reasonably according to the circumstances. # The party breached the duty. # The party’s breach of the duty caused you to be harmed.
|
|
Proponents claim that the Supreme Court has, through intense judicial activism, become a symbol of hope for the people of India. As a result of judicial activism, India's Supreme Court has delivered a new normative regime of rights and insisted that the Indian state cannot act arbitrarily but must act reasonably and in public interest on pain of its action being invalidated by judicial intervention. India's judicial activism on environmental issues has, others suggest, had adverse consequences. Public interest cases are repeatedly filed to block infrastructure projects aimed at solving environmental issues in India, such as but not limiting to water works, expressways, land acquisition for projects, and electricity power generation projects.
|
|
RIA firms must be registered as providing investment management services with either the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or with the equivalent state office. RIAs have an even higher standard of care established by fiduciary standard to carry out their responsibilities with “good faith, honesty, integrity, loyalty and undivided service of the beneficiary’s interest.” The good faith clause requires RIAs to act reasonably in order to avoid negligent handling of the beneficiary's interests, and to not favor anyone else's interest, including the fiduciary's, over that of the client. Whether or not fiduciary responsibilities have been satisfied is not determined by investment performance, but by whether prudent investment practices and standards were followed.
|
|
Personal experience is crucial to the development of intellect, because in resolving the problems of life a person can attain enlightenment, the full, intellectual comprehension of a situation, and so improve his and her behavior in order to act reasonably and appropriately in society. The development of the intellect occurs consequent to the person’s emotional dissatisfaction that arises from the negative outcome of a given situation in life; mental development occurs from the search for solutions to the problems of life. Only experience can provide genuine and thoughtful understanding of reality, which consequently contributes to the person’s intellectual development. The Structure of Intellect (SI) model organizes intellectual functions in three dimensions: (i) Operations, (ii) Contents, and (iii) Products.
|
|
Young and inexperienced individuals may very well not foresee what an adult might foresee, a blind person cannot see at all, and an autistic person may not relate to the world as a non autistic person. Cases involving infancy and mental disorders potentially invoke excuses to criminal liability because the accused lack full capacity, and criminal systems provide an overlapping set of provisions which can either deal with such individuals outside the criminal justice system, or if a criminal trial is unavoidable, mitigate the extent of liability through the sentencing system following conviction. Notwithstanding, those who have ordinary intellectual capacities are expected to act reasonably given their physical condition. Thus, a court would ask whether a blind reasonable person would have set out to do what the particular blind defendant did.
|
|
However, it also considered that the contract in this case did not fall into any of the traditional categories of contracts where such terms are often implied. The court held that in these circumstances, it is necessary to consider whether the requirement of good faith is both reasonable and necessary in determining whether it should be implied into the contract. In this case, the court said that the term was reasonable and necessary, since otherwise Burger King would be able to deny approval for new stores "capriciously, or with the sole intent of engineering a default of the Development Agreement". In terms of the meaning of good faith, the court considered that there was no "distinction of substance" between an obligation to act in good faith and an obligation to act reasonably.
|
|
Minister of Police v Ewels, is an important case in both the South African law of delict and, to a lesser extent, South African criminal law. It expresses a general rule: An omission is to be regarded as unlawful conduct when the circumstances of the case are of such a nature not only that the omission incites moral indignation, but also that the legal convictions of the community demand that it be regarded as unlawful and that the damage suffered be made good by the person who neglected to perform a positive act. In order to make a determination as to whether or not there is unlawfulness, therefore, the question is not whether there was the usual "negligence" of the bonus paterfamilias; the question is whether, regard being had to all the facts, there was a duty in law to act reasonably. #Saflii Court case In casu, a citizen was assaulted in a police station by an off-duty officer in the presence of other officers.
|
|
The Court considered the language used in the statement and found that Tuberville did not express any intention to do any harm to Savage in the given circumstances. Tuberville's expressed words indicated that he was not going to harm Savage because the justices of assize were in town, and his laying his hand on his sword was to be interpreted in conjunction with those words, namely as an indication or description of what he would have done were the judges not nearby. Therefore, Tuberville's conduct was insufficient to put a reasonable person in Savage's situation in apprehension of immediate violence, as it involved neither a subjective intent to do so nor an act reasonably construable as doing so, at least one of which would have been required for Tuberville's action to constitute an assault. As such, Tuberville's conduct constituted neither an attack that would have justified Savage in defending himself nor even provocation sufficient to mitigate Savage's culpability for his response.
|
|
The Court of Appeals then held that evidence from the search had to be suppressed under the exclusionary rule. (While federal courts and some state courts recognized a good-faith exception to the rule for officers acting in good faith, the North Carolina Supreme Court had previously explicitly declined to recognize it.) North Carolina appealed the decision to the North Carolina Supreme Court, challenging only the conclusion that a mistaken belief that a traffic violation had occurred provided no "objectively reasonable justification" for a traffic stop. (North Carolina did not challenge the Court of Appeals's interpretation of the traffic statutes.) After surveying the answers to this question provided by other circuit and state courts, the North Carolina Supreme Court concluded that the Eighth Circuit's answer — that an officer may make a mistake of law and yet still act reasonably in making a stop based solely upon that mistake — was correct, declining to adopt eight other federal circuit courts' answer. It then concluded that Sergeant Darisse's mistake of law was objectively reasonable and that he had reasonable suspicion to stop Heien's vehicle.
|
|
Google (which operates the Google News aggregation site which would be affected) has opposed the directive since its first inception in 2016, when they argued that the proposals would "turn the internet into a place where everything uploaded to the web must be cleared by lawyers". According to Kent Walker, Senior Vice President for Global Affairs and Chief Legal Officer at Google, "Companies that act reasonably in helping rights holders identify and control the use of their content shouldn’t be held liable for anything a user uploads, any more than a telephone company should be liable for the content of conversations." In 2018 the company encouraged news publishers in its Digital News Initiative to lobby MEPs on the proposals, members of the initiative are eligible for grants to support digital journalism from a €150m fund. YouTube's chief executive officer, Susan Wojcicki, urged content creators on the platform to take action to oppose the legislation, as it "poses a threat to both [their] livelihood and [their] ability to share [their] voice with the world", and stressing that their Content ID system was intended to help assure fair management and payments for copyright holders already without government intervention.
|
|