551 Sentences With "appellants" | Random Sentence Generator

"We affirm the district court's dismissal of Appellants' Second Amendment claim," Hayes wrote in the court's conclusion.

In short, appellants allege a horizontal pricefixing conspiracy, 'perhaps the paradigm of an unreasonable restraint of trade.

"This was a situation which... involved no personal gain on the appellants' part," Judge Chao Hick Tin said.

Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, the deputy attorney general representing the government, denied the appellants' claims, saying they had been accorded their rights.

On August 31, the state will release the final list of citizens, and the appellants will find out if they were successful.

In its 182-page judgment, the court concluded that the appellants failed to prove wrongdoing on the part of the military authorities.

It will have a clearly defined appeals process to the federal courts at no cost to appellants, with a 30-day decision limit.

In Congressional testimony, Chief ALJ Nancy Griswold shared that 51 percent of appeals filed in 2015 were filed by the same five appellants.

The appellants would not have objected to a cake carrying the message "Support Heterosexual Marriage" or indeed "Support Marriage," the court's decision read.

"The appellants note that Senator Craig suffered 'severe professional and personal consequences' as a result of his arrest for disorderly conduct," Garland wrote.

The ECB has two months to reply to the appeal, after which the appellants can bring the case to the European Court of Justice.

Rescinding Tuesday's injunction, Jerusalem District Court said appellants had not provided sufficient evidence that Leviathan's emissions, in its start-up phase, could prove dangerous.

It could find that the appellants lack standing to sue, or rule that Wisconsin's map was uniquely awful, but abstain from deciding a universal standard.

"To get around this, the appellants asserted a dizzying array of legal theories casting Alabama's minimum-wage law as state-sponsored racial discrimination," the brief said.

We agree with Chief Administrative Law Judge Nancy Griswold, who recommended, a tiered, volume-based refundable filing fee be imposed on appellants to curb documented frequent filers.

Responding this week, the state rejected the appellants' argument as false and as an attempt to buy time, noting that the Supreme Court had previously approved the demolition.

The court has been hearing the case for the remaining appellants, and is expected to give a verdict on all 0003 cases together, possibly in the coming weeks.

"In agreement with Texas and the United States, we reject appellants' attempt to locate a voter-equality mandate in the Equal Protection Clause," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explained.

He argues that the current legal standard makes it too difficult to appeal a license rejection decision, by requiring appellants to prove a police chief's decision was arbitrary and capricious.

Saira Grant of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, which is supporting the appellants at the Supreme Court, argues that "integration is not achieved by an artificial financial threshold".

"We recognize that our decision today provides no remedy to appellants, who have undoubtedly suffered along with too many others as a result of Madoff's Ponzi scheme," the three-judge panel wrote.

"We agree with Heslin that the district court has not yet ruled on Appellants' motion to dismiss, nor has the motion been overruled by operation of law," the court added in its conclusion.

"Appellants' request for an immediate administrative stay pending full consideration of the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied," the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said.

A five-member bench ruled that the appellants had not proved the military violated their constitutional rights or failed to follow procedure, in a blow to some activists who contend the courts routinely violate people's rights.

LONDON, July 22 (Reuters) - Campaigners against the expansion of Heathrow Airport have won the right to lodge a new legal challenge against the construction of a new runway at Europe's biggest airport, Greenpeace, one of the appellants, said on Monday.

What Wheeler fails to grasp, however, is that deference is accorded on a case-by-case basis, and his victory in USTelecom resulted more from bad facts and the appellants' legal strategy than from superior legal acumen by the FCC.

"The harm to the city and its dependents - employees and stakeholders, agencies and businesses, and 685,000 residents - so outweighs the harm to these appellants that granting their requested relief and unraveling the plan would be impractical, imprudent, and therefore inequitable," she added.

" The Colorado law's requirement that people whose convictions are overturned hire a lawyer and pay a filing fee to start a new lawsuit, he said, "virtually ensures that successful appellants aren't going to get their money back when their convictions are reversed.

" Although the federal appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling that no action be taken against IRS employees in their individual capacities, the judges in the end ruled to "vacate and remand for further proceedings with respect to the equitable clams of the plantiff-appellants.

The appellants argued that given the way the Internet works, the plain language of the Communications Act prohibits reclassification; the commission, in turn, argued that as the expert agency, it has wide latitude to change its mind so long as it provides a reasonable explanation.

"If DOJ [the Department of Justice] wishes to continue these prosecutions, the appellants are entitled to evidentiary hearings to determine whether their conduct was completely authorized by state law," Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote, sending the cases back to lower federal courts for further review.

There is no "mooring in the equal-protection clause" for the idea that districts must be distributed according to eligible voters, but "because history, precedent, and practice suffice to reveal the infirmity of appellants' claims, we need not and do not resolve whether...states may draw districts to equalise voter-eligible population rather than total population".

"We sympathize with appellants' individual plights, apparently more freighted with duty and sacrifice than benefits and privilege, but the Citizenship Clause is textually ambiguous as to whether 'in the United States' encompasses America's unincorporated territories and we hold it 'impractical and anomalous,' to impose citizenship by judicial fiat—where doing so requires us to override the democratic prerogatives of the American Samoan people themselves," Judge Janice Rogers Brown said in the appeals court's decision.

Brief Amicus Curiae of Assembly of the State of California in Support of Appellants, Susan J. DAVIS, et al., Appellants, v. Irwin C. BANDEMER, et al., Appellees.

Appellants > did not have permission or invitation to enter the fort. There had not been > prior arrangement for the sale of marijuana between McLoren and appellants. > Appellant Jason was carrying a folding pocketknife. There is no evidence > that appellants Micah, Hein, or Miliotti carried weapons or that any of them > knew Jason carried a pocketknife.

The appellate court affirmed. It held appellants had ample legislative authority it could exercise to stop appellee's war making, and thus, appellants lacked the power to challenge such executive action in court.

The appellants sought both a declaration from the court that the decision by Michael Lowry to award ESAT the license was null and void and damages. The State filed its own motions seeking an order to dismiss the proceedings against the Minister for delay/ and want of prosecution. It was held by the High Court judge that the delay on the part of the appellants in issuing legal proceedings was inordinate and inexcusable and that there was no justification for it: > "I come to the conclusion that where responsibility for inordinate and > inexcusable delay rests with the appellants..... where the appellants have > failed after a late start to advance their proceedings expeditiously, the > balance of justice favors the dismissal of proceedings and I dismiss the > appellants proceedings against the state for want of prosecution." The appellants appealed this judgment to the Supreme Court.

A few months later his appeal from the Bull was published. The appellants were soon joined by many priests and religious, especially from the Dioceses of Paris and Reims. To swell the list of appellants the names of laymen and even women were accepted. The number of appellants is said to have reached 1,800 to 2,000, pitifully small, for the approximately 1,500,000 livres ($300,000) distributed as bribes.

March 20, 1984., ZANDRA ROLON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. WALTER KULWITZKY et al.

The information given to appellants and their representatives is limited as compared to other removal hearings.

"US judge stamps on fraud - Knapp accuses Feigenbaum" by Tony Levene in The Sunday Times, 18 August 1985. Retrieved 30 September 2012 from newsbank.com The ruling of Judge Knapp was upheld on appeal and the appeal judges commented that the "...meaning of his decision comes through loud and clear--the tax shelter sold by the appellants was a sham and the appellants knew it." The appellants were enjoined from continuing to offer the Philatelic tax shelter for sale.

The appellants then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari in the fall 1960 term.

After this virtual coup d'état, the Appellants continued to dominate English politics for the next year. Richard was effectively their puppet until the return of John of Gaunt from his Spanish campaigns in 1389. The power of the Appellants rested on popular support from the commons in parliament, but by the end of 1388 this support had already begun to wane. In the subsequent parliament held at Cambridge in September 1388, the commons were highly critical of the Appellants' record in government.

Morgan v. Hamlet, 113 U.S. 449 (1885), was a bill in equity filed by the appellants, September 3, 1879.

McKisack (1959), p. 458. The appellants had now succeeded completely in breaking up the circle of favourites around the king.

Since the father was neither a party nor a consentee to this adoption, appellants contend the court was without jurisdiction.

The foreign act of state doctrine applies in English law.United Kingdom Supreme Court, Belhaj and another (Respondents) v Straw and others (Appellants); Rahmatullah (No 1) (Respondent) v Ministry of Defence and another (Appellants) 17 January 2017, accessed 26 July 2018 In April 2018, the English Commercial Court ruled that it also applies in English arbitration.

Justice William Young also held that the appellants' claim that Native Land Court titles to riparian blocks included the riverbed to its midpoint was "at least doubtful".Paki v Attorney-General (No 2) [2014] NZSC 118 at [254]. However William Young J also held that the appellants could not rely on the rules of equity to have the riverbed placed in a constructive trust or partially rescinded. Furthermore, William Young J held that the appellants' claims were barred by limitation statutes and also the Crown's defence of laches and acquiescence was made out.

Travelers Property Casualty and Travelers Indemnity Company, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Ross GOOD United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The appellants were the married parents of two children. The family lived in England until 2008, and had no prior connection with Ireland. Nottinghamshire County Council expressed concerns about the care of their children. In November 2008, the appellants moved to Ireland, with the children, who were taken into the care of the Health Service Executive (the "HSE").

The appellants' attorneys were Tobie Oosthuizen, Port Elizabeth, and Webbers, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Jankelowitz, Kerbel & Schärges, Port Elizabeth, and Lovius- Block, Bloemfontein. HJ van der Linde (with him MPQ Spruyt) appeared for the appellants; JRG Buchanan SC for the respondent. The case concerned, in the first place, the remedy of repudiation for breach of contract.

Sumption, p. 633 In August, 1387, to establish a legal basis for overthrowing the appellants, Richard called seven judges of the superior courts to answer a series of questions regarding their legitimacy. Under significant duress, each of the judges agreed that the appellants had no authority and were guilty of treason and signed a statement authorizing their arrest.Sumption, p.

The examiners recommended that the passport revocations be sustained. Both appellants appealed to the Board of Passport Appeals which recommended affirmance of the revocations. The Secretary of State subsequently approved the recommendations of the Board. Appellants thereupon filed separate complaints seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Goldberg further stated that the appellants had made sufficient showings of racially discriminatory intent in the redistricting plan to pursue their case.

Irving B. Kahn and Teleprompter Corporation, Appellants : United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. - 472 F.2d 272; Argued Oct. 18, 1972.

Linden also concluded the exclusion of same-sex couples from the definition of "spouse" did not minimally impair the appellants' section 15 rights.

FOUNTAINEBLEAU HOTEL CORP., a Florida corporation, and Charnofree Corporation, a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. FORTY-FIVE TWENTY-FIVE, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

Hence this appeal to determine whether the appellants are obliged to pay harbour dues. The appellants alleged that the Order in Council extending the limits of Saint John Harbour had been passed for improper motives to increase harbour revenues. It is neither the Court's duty nor its right to investigate the federal Cabinet's motives. Held: The appeal should be dismissed.

Abraham Braunfeld and the other appellants were Pennsylvania merchants. As Orthodox Jews, the appellants were unable to do business on Friday evening or Saturday. They objected to a Pennsylvania law forbidding them from doing business on Sunday, arguing that the law unfairly discriminated against them by effectively forcing them to remain closed for one more day than competing Christian merchants.

The appellants (Benoy Berry) had entered into an agency agreement with the respondent. Under the agreement, the appellants would receive commissions on sales of polymer notes. The agreement provided for its automatic renewal every two years; unless terminated in accordance with its termination clauses. In early 2008, the respondent induced termination of the agreement by the appellant by means of a false representation.

As result, in addition to the authors of the submissions from the Appellants and Respondents (12 persons), 17 persons were subject to cross examination .

Cameron dissented from the opinion of the court. Thurgood Marshall, Fred Gray, Derrick Bell and Jack Greenberg were among the counsel for the appellants.

In S v Longdistance (Natal) & Others (1989), an important case in South African criminal procedure, the appellants had been convicted on two counts of contravening the Road Transportation Act in that they had conveyed, in two sets of vehicles, each comprising a mechanical horse and trailer, 2,000 pockets of refined sugar in each set of vehicles to a consignee in the Eastern Transvaal who intended reselling it, such transportation not being covered by the provisions of permits issued to the appellants. They appealed. The appellants contended that there had been an unlawful duplication of charges in that the sugar conveyed constituted one consignment from Durban to the consignee, but that there were two charges regarding the same act. The court held that the charges against the appellants were that they undertook road transportation otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the permits.

Either way, contemporary sources partisan to the Appellants report that Exton's uncooperativeness was responsible for the failure of "palace intrigues". The supposed plot against the Appellants must have occurred within weeks of Exton's election as Mayor in October 1387. As a recent biographer has commented, Exton and Brembre continued their close co- operation. In particular, Exton carried on prosecuting and imprisoning their mutual enemies.

Mpati P, Brand JA, Snyders JA, Malan JA and Bosielo JA presided. Counsel for the appellants was BC Wharton; CHJ Maree appeared for the respondent in case No. 483/08 and M. Verster for the respondent in case No. 007/09. These were appeals from two decisions in the High Court, Cape Town. The appellants' attorneys were RP Totos, Cape Town, and Symington & De Kok, Bloemfontein.

The High Court held that the appellants did not have standing to challenge the respondent’s decision and that the Environmental Impact Assessment was adequate.Grace & anor v An Bord Pleanála & ors [2015 IEHC 593] The appellants applied to the High Court for a certificate, so as to appeal the decision on "standing" before the Court of Appeal and to make reference to the European Court of Justice, on whether the assessment was adequate. The High Court refused both applications.Grace & anor v An Bord Pleanala [2015 IEHC 870] The appellants applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court directly from the High Court on the basis of Article 34.5.

Botha JA held for the majority (Smalberger JA dissenting) that it was not for the appellants to show that the respondents were given a proper hearing. They were called upon only to meet the specific allegations put forward by the respondents in support of the relief claimed. The appellants were required to answer a case founded on the allegation that the respondents were not given a hearing; they were not called upon in any other way to raise a valid defence to the relief sought. It was not permissible, the court determined, to consider the appellants' affidavits in isolation, divorced from the context of the case they were answering.

Farris did not resist or otherwise defend himself from the blows > administered by Hein. Both McLoren and Farris broke away from the fight and > ran to McLoren’s house. They each reported to McLoren’s mother that “. . . > they (appellants) came to get our stuff . . .” and had stabbed them. Mrs. > McLoren saw a stab wound in the center of Farris’ chest. Witnesses observed > appellants together leaving the McLoren yard, being met by the Velardo > pickup truck and driving away in Velardo’s pickup truck. A witness testified > that he observed the four appellants on the street as they left the McLoren > backyard apparently talking among themselves and smiling.

The respondent sued the appellants out of the High Court for her damages suffered as a result of injuries sustained when she slipped and fell in a shopping mall owned by the first appellant and cleaned by the second appellant. The respondent alleged that the second appellant was negligent in failing to detect and remove the spillage in the passage, and that the first appellant was vicariously liable for the negligence of the second appellant. At the conclusion of the trial, the High Court held that the appellants were jointly and severally liable to the respondent. The appellants appealed against that decision to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Justice Wiley Blount Rutledge concurred with Justice Black's dissent regarding Poole. He concurred with the majority that the case was not ripe regarding the other appellants.

VALENTINE et al , Accessed April 3, 2009 The Superior Court found that the appellants lacked standing to "complain about alleged violations of certain voters' constitutional rights".

In September 2014, an asylum tribunal dismissed the appeal of several North Koreans, ruling that the "appellants are South Korean citizens and their asylum appeal must fail".

Two appellants, who had separately claimed asylum in the United Kingdom, were heard jointly in the Court of Appeal. They were known only as ′E′ and ′R′.

The Apostolic See, in concerted action with the new Archbishop Vintimille of Paris and the French Government, gradually brought about the submission of most of the appellants.

I think the impact of this > law upon these appellants grossly violates their constitutional right to the > free exercise of their religion. Braunfeld, 366 U.S. at 616.

Supreme Court of Singapore, photographed in December 2005, where the appeal in Eng Foong Ho v. Attorney-General was heard by the Court of Appeal On appeal to the Court of Appeal, three issues were raised. The first issue was whether the plaintiffs (appellants) had the requisite locus standi. The second was whether there had been an inordinate delay on the appellants' part in pursuing the matter in court.

In a 4-1 ruling, the appeal was allowed in part. In relation to the appellants’ limitation of liability, the appeal was allowed with costs but including only one-half of their costs of the leave application. The appellants’ joint and several liability is limited by the Convention. In relation to the claim against the insurer, the appeal was dismissed with costs including its costs of the leave application.

United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. at 84-86. On the substantive issues raised, Justice Reed noted that none of the appellants, except George P. Poole, had violated the provisions of the Hatch Act.United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. at 83. Since the federal courts do not issue advisory rulings, Reed dismissed the issues raised by all appellants except Poole.United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. at 89-90.

The appeals were presided over by panel of five judges. All five justices agreed that they would allow the appeals of the appellants. In addition, the Court refused to grant the relief sought by the government to strike out the proceedings on the grounds of delay (also called "want of prosecution"). The Court held that the delay on the part of the appellants in the proceedings was justified.

Edwin MEESE, III; Immigration & Naturalization Service; Harold Ezell, Defendants-Appellants. No. 88-6249. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued En Banc and Submitted April 18, 1991.

They were advised by an Ontario lawyer that the foreign judgment could not be enforced in Ontario because the appellants had not attorned to the Florida court's jurisdiction.

Tenth Circuit Decision and the Eleventh CircuitUnited States Court Of Appeals for The Eleventh Circuit Decision. December 4, 2009. James Hopper, Colin Hutto, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The named defendants, and appellants here, were the Administrator of the city's Human Resources Administration (HRA), and the city's Director of Personnel and Chairman of its Civil Service Commission.

American Target Advertising, Inc., Viguerie and Associates, Inc.; The Viguerie Co., Defendants-Appellants, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, July 11, 2001. Retrieved July 12, 2018.

As there was no appearance for the respondents, and as the appellants intended to argue the same issue from different perspectives, it was decided to hear their appeals concurrently.

He did agree with the majority that the appellants had standing to bring the appeal, and that Judge Vaughn Walker's decision should not be vacated on allegations of bias.

In her analysis, L'Heureux-Dubé registers her accord with Cory's finding that there is a legislative distinction being made. Furthermore, she concludes that the distinction denies the appellants the equal benefit of the law as a couple. Regarding the status of the appellants, she agrees with Cory that they are clearly part of a "highly socially vulnerable group, in that they have suffered considerable historical disadvantage, stereotyping, marginalization and stigmatization within Canadian society."Egan v.

The Court held that Maryland's laws did not violate the First Amendment. The plaintiffs claimed only economic injury, not that they had been prevented from the free exercise of their religion. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Warren concluded: :[The] appellants allege only economic injury to themselves; they do not allege any infringement of their own religious freedoms due to Sunday closing. In fact, the record is silent as to what appellants' religious beliefs are.

In Bess v. Bracken County Fiscal Court, 210 S.W.3d 177 (Ky.App.,2006), the Kentucky Court of Appeals reviewed a Bracken County ordinance that banned pit bull terriers. The appellants (Mr.

Though the appellants argued that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction because the contract didn't cover the items listed in the indictment, the Court assumed a sale had occurred.

In 1994, the Ninth Circuit held that Sikh students in public school have a right to wear the kirpan.Rajinder Singh Cheema, et al., Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Harold H. Thompson, et al.

This case pitted the plaintiffs, Thorne's Hardware Limited, Kent Lines Limited, Canaport Limited and Irving Oil Limited, against the National Harbours Board, over the extension of harbour limits. Appellants challenged in the Federal Court (1) the validity of an order in council extending the limits of the port of Saint John so as to include appellants' berth and harbour facilities and (2) the applicability to them of a National Harbours Board's By-law imposing harbour dues on all vessels entering or using the port. The Trial Division held the Order in Council intra vires the powers of the Governor in Council but the By-law to be inapplicable to the appellants. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial judge on the second point.

In S v Masilela, the appellants assaulted their victim by striking him over the head and throttling him with a tie. Although the assault caused the victim serious injuries which rendered him unconscious, it did not kill him. After throwing the victim on the bed and covering him with a blanket, the appellants proceeded to ransack the house. Then, believing the victim to be already dead, they set the bed alight, as well as the house, and made off.

The appellants in two cases had had their homes sold in execution for debts of R250 and R190 respectively. The appellants applied in the High Court for orders setting aside the sales and executions, and interdicting two of the respondents from taking transfer of their homes. The basis of the applications was that the sale-in-execution process was unconstitutional. The High Court dismissed their argument, finding that the applicants could either vacate the premises or remain in occupation.

Chicago Regional Port District. The plaintiffs, later the appellants, challenged the district on the grounds that the sale or lease of navigable waters by the State was prohibited and the State did not have the ability to establish special corporations. In 1954, the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the appellants to be constitutional. In 1985, the Illinois International Port District was created by the Illinois International Port District Act as a political subdivision to run the Port of Chicago.

The appellants were a syndicate of names at Lloyds,There were 246 appellants, who were members of the Outhwaite Syndicate 317/661. (referred to in the judgment as "the names") and had agreed to underwrite certain insurance policies relating to asbestos claims in 1992. A number of very substantial claims were made under those policies which cost the names a great deal of money. Their losses were exacerbated because of a lack of reinsurance cover for those risks.

As the principle that any purported amendment of an association's constitution by its members that does not follow the prescribed procedure is void is well settled, it should only mean that the act of registering the College with the new constitution was wrongful and perhaps the registration is a nullity. The appellate court noted that the Appellants had only used a new constitution to effect the registration of FEBC as a charity as they could not find a copy of the (original) Constitution. While the Appellants could have amended the Constitution as the Board members were all before the Court as Appellants, the Judges of Appeal were of the view that the Appellants’ subjective and objective intentions were clearly to register the College as a charity and not to create a new entity. This is because they had informed the Commissioner of Charities that the college they were registering was formed in 1962 and they had submitted to him the College's audited accounts for the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 as part of the application form to register the College.

The court decided, accordingly, that the mandament had correctly been granted against the appellants, and so confirmed the decision in Ntshwaqela v Chairman, Western Cape Regional Services Council.1988 (3) SA 218 (C).

Kenford Company, Inc., and Dome Stadium, Inc., Appellants, v. County of Erie, et al., Respondents, 67 N.Y.2d 257 (1986), Court of Appeals of the State of New York, Decided May 6, 1986.

Therefore, the Court found that this meant the first two appellants, Brian O'Donnell and Mary Patricia O'Donnell did not have locus standi. Although, some personal actions may rest with the appellants as opposed to the Official Assignee, litigation is not one of them. Subsequently, Mr and Mrs O'Donnell did not have the capacity to bring a motion before the court. The order for a stay could only be accepted if it is initiated by the Official Assignee in this case.

" "Each appellant was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to Jimmy Farris' life," Bedrossian said. "The sentences in this case do not offend fundamental notions of human dignity and the penalties in this case should not be changed." On 29 January 2001 the California Court of Appeal ruled that "In order to warrant reversal, it must be determined that the alleged misconduct has prejudiced appellants’ right to a fair trial. In this case, the evidence against appellants was overwhelming.

The victim died, not from the assault, but as a result of carbon-monoxide poisoning caused by the fumes from the fire. In an appeal from a conviction of murder, it was contended that at most the appellants were guilty of attempted murder on the ground that, in respect of the assault, the intention (mens rea) for murder had been present, but not the unlawful consequence of death; and, with regard to the burning, there had been the unlawful consequence required for murder but not the intention (mens rea), since the appellants believed the victim to be already dead. The Appellate Division held that the appellants were guilty of murder. Ogilvie Thompson JA refused to regard the assault and the subsequent burning as two separate and disconnected acts.

The Appellants wished to rely on Article 9 of the Convention, guaranteeing the right to freedom, thought and conscience. At first instance and in the Court of Appeal the Appellants' submissions were rejected and it was held that deporting a person to a country which violated Article 9 would not amount to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, and thus an applicant could be deported to the state in violation of Article 9. Particular notice should be drawn to Paragraph 4-6 of the judgment of Lord Bingham. Here it is stated (using the judgment of the Court of Appeal, [2002] EWCA Civ 1856, as authority) that the Appellants, in order to rely on Article 9, would have to prove that the interference with Convention Rights was 'flagrant'.

Appellants Herbert Aptheker and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn were native born citizens and residents of the United States and had held valid passports. Aptheker was editor of Political Affairs, the 'theoretical organ' of the Communist Party in the United States and appellant Flynn was chairman of the Party. On January 22, 1962, the Acting Director of the Passport Office notified appellants that their passports were revoked because the Department of State believed that their use of the passports would violate § 6 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 which provided that it was unlawful for any member of a Communist party to apply for or to renew a US passport or to use such a passport. Appellants requested and received hearings to review the revocations of their passports.

Ombudsman can also deliver opinions and review decisions; however, these are not binding even though generally followed. Ombudsman receives 200-300 complaints annually; approximately 15 percent of complaints are ruled in favour of appellants.

Roe, 2011 WL 3664450 (U.S.), 3-4. However, in court the birth mother "admitted she was untruthful to Father, Appellants, the adoption agency, and the guardian ad litem...."Reeves v. Roe, 2011 WL 3664450 (U.

This case was subsequently followed in Minister for Justice and Equality v Anthony Craig and Another [2015] IECA 102 in which the appellants also lost their appeals against extradition to UK regarding convictions of murder.

Instead, they exaggerated the purpose of disenfranchising Afro-Americans. The appellants argued then that the disenfranchisement rules were not unconstitutional since the secret, yet ultimate, purpose was to secure the rule of the Southern Democrats by disenfranchising a sufficient amount of their opponents' supporters, independent of their race. They claimed that rewriting the laws for such a purpose was not prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court did not comment on the constitutionality of the purpose that the appellants claimed that the constitutional reform had.

He also pointed out that media conglomerates were a more likely threat than the appellants to the public interests raised by the state of Massachusetts, due to their immense influence.Bellotti, 435 U.S. at 796-797. Thus, Burger concluded that "no factual distinction has been identified as yet that would justify government restraints on the right of appellants to express their views without, at the same time, opening the door to similar restraints on media conglomerates with their vastly greater influence".Bellotti, 435 U.S. at 797.

Indeed, it has been argued that the Appellants were predominantly concerned with the task of destroying various members of Richard II's court, and after this objective had been achieved they ceased to concern themselves with the governance of England. Richard immediately began formulating plans for revenge and afterwards finally enacted a de facto peace with France with the Truce of Leulinghem. Most of the Appellants were executed during the 1390s. Gloucester was exiled to Calais where he was suffocated, probably on the orders of Richard.

The Florida Supreme Court stated: > Near the scene of the crime a handkerchief and some cotton were found. The > woman was found near the scene of the crime about dawn. A large track about > the scene fit the shoe of one of the appellants. Cotton or lint about the > car and broken glass in the automobile testified to by the woman assisted > the officers in identifying the car which the appellants admit they were > riding in at the exact hour the State charge the crime was committed.

Darkan v R (2006) HCA 34 is a High Court of Australia case concerning the meaning of "probable consequence" as used in ss8 and 9 of the Criminal Code of Queensland. The three appellants were tried and convicted of the murder of Kalman John Toth, the second appellant's de facto husband. A dispute arose between the second appellant and the deceased. The second appellant recruited three men to do him harm: the other two appellants and Bowen, who appeared as a witness for the prosecution.

Secondly, they argued by the principle of ad medium filum they had acquired title of the non-navigable parts of the river and denied any breach of equitable or fiduciary duties.Paki v Attorney-General (No 2) [2014] NZSC 118 at [5]. Finally, the Crown argued that the passage of time barred the appellants case. The appellants failed in the High Court and the Court of Appeal on various grounds, with both courts ruling that the Waikato River as a whole was a navigable river.

There was no evidence from an objective standpoint that the appellants were acting reasonably and proportionately to a threat of injury. The evidence was clear that it was possible for the appellants to control pain by conventional and legal means. To admit the medical use of cannabis on the ground of necessity would defeat the legislative purpose underpinning the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Further, for the defence of necessity to succeed, the threat of injury must be immediate and imminent and come from an extraneous source.

ENEL and Van Gend en Loos takes precedence. Giving his judgment, Lord Justice John Laws accepted that the appellants were correct in arguing that the 1985 Act provided for both the Imperial and metric systems to operate side by side. He also accepted that implied repeal could work pro tanto and that the Australian case relied upon by the appellants correctly stated the law of England. He held that the relationship between community and national law had to be judged exclusively by reference to national law.

By a later court order, Jemison and his co-plaintiff were required to pay the other side's attorney fees. The court found that Jemison had concocted evidence to justify the suit.T.J. JEMISON, et al., APPELLANTS v.

The Court decided that the Star Wars Stormtrooper helmet was not a sculpture for the purposes of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.Lucasfilm Limited and others (Appellants) v Ainsworth and another (Respondents) at supremecourt.

To the extent that the appellants' affidavits went further than may have been necessary to answer the case as presented, it could not be said the appellants would not be prejudiced if their affidavits were relied upon to determine the nature and ambit of the hearing that took place: To do so would be unfair to the appellants and tantamount to reversing the onus. The court found that there was little scope, if any, for deciding matters of fact on the basis of a respondent's affidavits, where such affidavits dealt with facts not put forward directly in answer to the factual grounds of relief on which the applicant relied, particularly where the affidavits dealt equivocally with such facts, as was the case in the instant matter. As to the issue whether the audi rule had been complied with, it appeared from the appellants' affidavits that the respondents had been given the opportunity to make representations. It was not clear from these affidavits, however, whether this opportunity had been expressed to be an unlimited one embracing all reasons why they should not be dismissed, or a restricted one confined only to reasons as to why they stayed away from work.

The finding of the court a quo in this regard—that the appellants ought to have taken steps to prevent the republication—was determined to be without legal basis.Para 16. The court accordingly upheld the appeal.Para 17.

In conclusion, the Minister had to take into account the constitutional and conventional rights of all Appellants including the Irish child when making his decision on ordering a deportation. Otherwise, the deportation orders will not be valid.

The Court voted seven to two in favor of the appellants, and in its decision, expanded privacy protections to peripheral activities as well, citing the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution.

This remark may have been a reflection upon the extent to which Exton by now had a reputation among his peers for double-dealing. The King also expressed displeasure at Exton's obeisance towards the Appellants, and deliberately pardoned Exton and Brembre's old rival, John Northampton, who until then was still in disgrace, in retaliation Exton himself had personally annulled Northampton's London citizenship earlier in the year.The Appellants proceeded to prosecute those they considered the King's political allies. This included Nicholas Brembre, and at the Merciless Parliament of 1388, he was condemned to death.

The respondents denied that they had been afforded a hearing of any kind at all, while the appellants in their affidavits chose to show not only # that the respondents had been afforded a hearing; but also # that the hearing had been a proper and fair one. The respondents did not seek to rely on their foundational allegation on appeal; they contended instead that the matter could be decided on the appellants' affidavits. They based their arguments on the premise that it appeared from those affidavits that the hearing did not comply with the audi rule.

Upon motion of appellee same-sex couples, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals consolidated Love v. Beshear, now docketed 14-5818 on appeal, and dealing with in-state licensing of same-sex marriage — with Bourke v. Beshear, already under appeal under docket 14-5291, and dealing with out-of- state same-sex marriage recognition. A July 16, 2014, order by the Sixth Circuit set an expedited briefing schedule: state appellants' opening brief due July 17, appellee same-sex couples' principal brief due July 24, and appellants' reply due July 31.

In S v Pakane & Others (2007), an important case in South African criminal procedure, the three appellants, all police officers, appeared on charges relating to the death of one F, who had been shot twice, once at sufficiently close range as to leave a contact wound. The second appellant, a sergeant, was convicted of murder and of defeating the ends of justice and sentenced. The first and third appellants, both constables, were convicted of being accessories after the fact to murder, and were each sentenced. All three appealed.

As well as all this, one cannot overlook the physical danger to > those who may indulge in sado-masochism. In this connection, and also > generally, it is idle for the appellants to claim that they are educated > exponents of "civilised cruelty". As your Lordships have observed, the > appellants have sought to fortify their argument by reference to the > European Convention on Human Rights. On the view which I have taken, Article > 7 has no relevance since the question of retrospective legislation or a > retrospective judicial decision does not arise.

At the contempt proceeding where the appellants were seeking a fine or imprisonment against the defendant, the allegations against Hill were found to be untrue and without foundation. Hill launched a lawsuit for libel damages against the appellants. Both Manning and the Church were found jointly liable for general damages of C$300,000 and Scientology alone was found liable for aggravated damages of C$500,000 and punitive damages of C$800,000. The judgement was affirmed in a 1994 decision by the Court of Appeal for Ontario Hill v.

In Jackson v Attorney General, the appellants questioned the validity of the Parliament Act 1949. There were various arguments put forward by the appellants who were represented by Sir Sydney Kentridge QC. All nine judges accepted that the court had jurisdiction to consider whether the 1949 Act was valid.Le Sueur et al. (2010). p. 592. They looked to distinguish the case from that of Pickin v British Railways Board, where the unequivocal belief of the judges had been that "the courts in this country have no power to declare enacted law to be invalid".

The appellant had been convicted in a Provincial Division of, inter alia, murder committed during a robbery, and were sentenced to death. The deceased was a bank teller and was shot between the shoulder blades during the robbery by one of the appellants. The deceased did not die immediately but only some six months later. On appeal, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that, although the shooting of the deceased was a cause of the deceased's death, it was not a legal cause of his death.

Appellants-defendants filed their brief to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals on 14 January 2015. Plaintiffs-appellees filed their brief on 6 March 2015. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued their decision on 17 June 2016.

Edwin MEESE, III, United States Attorney General, and Michael Landon, District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Defendants-Appellants, Walter Polovchak, Intervening-Appellant. Nos. 85-2297, 85-2305. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued Sept.

Paras 11-14. There was, however, no evidence to show that the appellants had authorised or were otherwise responsible for the republication of the report to non-NEHAWU members. They could not therefore be held liable for it.Para 15.

The Church (as plaintiffs) prevailed in Life Bible-Presbyterian Church v FEBC heard in the High Court. However, the FEBC directors (as appellants) won the appeal in FEBC v Life Bible-Presbyterian Church heard in the Court of Appeal.

This is primarily due to a more adversarial legal system. This manifests itself in different ways, most notably with the appellants and respondents facing each other during a moot, rather than, as in England and Wales, facing the judge.

In a 1988 case, Hammill v. Valentine, was brought before the Glynn County Superior Court. In the case, the appellants alleged that voter rights had been violated and that illegal votes cast doubt on the election.HAMMILL et al. v.

However, after 1955, the African-American teachers from the local "negro school" were not retained; this was ascribed to poor performance. They appealed their dismissal in Naomi Brooks et al., Appellants, v. School District of City of Moberly, Missouri, Etc.

The appellants, Ellis and Watkins, filed an appeal in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. It was argued on December 13, 1968, and decided on April 30, 1969. The judges were John A. Danaher, J. Skelly Wright, and Harold Leventhal.

Initially the appellants had sought customary ownership of the riverbed in the Maori Land Court. But the claim was blocked by the 1962 Court of Appeal decision, Re the Bed of the Wanganui River [1962] NZLR 600 which, "assumed that ownership of the riverbed had been determined, and customary rights extinguished, when ownership of the neighbouring riverbank was investigated by the Native Land Court. This earlier precedent also assumed that the common law presumption of ad medium filum aquae applied." In consequence the appellants went to the High Court seeking relief for breach of fiduciary duties. The appellants claimed on behalf of descendants of members of hapu who had been awarded interests in land adjoining the Waikato River by the Native Land Court in the late 19th century.Paki v Attorney-General (No 2) [2014] NZSC 118 at [1]. According to Chief Justice Sian Elias's summary; "The appellants asserted in the High Court that the vesting of Pouakani No 1 and the Crown acquisitions of the other riparian blocks gave the Crown ownership of the bed of the river to the middle of the flow (“usque ad medium filum aquae”), by operation of a conveyancing presumption of English common law."Paki v Attorney-General (No 2) [2014] NZSC 118 at [3].

Having applied unsuccessfully to the High Court for writs of habeas corpus to be issued, the appellants appealed against the ruling. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the narrow ground that the Government had not adduced sufficient evidence to discharge its burden of proving the President was satisfied that the appellants' detention was necessary to prevent them from endangering, among other things, Singapore's security or public order, which was required by section 8(1) of the ISA before the Minister for Home Affairs could make detention orders against them.Chng Suan Tze, pp. 537–542, paras. 29–42.

In a 4–3 decision, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts' dismissal of the complaints against the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department based on the public duty doctrine ruling that "the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists". The Court thus adopted the trial court's determination that no special relationship existed between the police and appellants, and therefore no specific legal duty existed between the police and the appellants.

In the United Kingdom context, this is demonstrated by Ahmed v H.M. Treasury (No. 1) (2010).. The Treasury had exercised powers to freeze the appellants' financial assets and economic resources on the ground that it reasonably suspected the appellants were or might be persons who had committed, attempted to commit, participated in or facilitated the commission of terrorism, pursuant to the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 (S.I. 2006 No. 2657). and the Al-Qaida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2006Al-Qaida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 (S.

The appellants agreed in writing to sell their farm to another couple. When the purchasers moved in they found several things missing that had been on the property at the time of purchase: a commode, washstand, hay carriage, electric stove cord, and 30-35 peach trees. The sale agreement did not cover personal property, but did cover: "All buildings, plumbing, heating, lighting fixtures, screens, storm sash, shades, blinds, awnings, shrubbery and plants." The purchasers also claimed there was an oral agreement that included the missing items not covered by the written sale agreement, though the appellants denied this.

On 2 December 1995, the three appellants were among a group of nine who abducted and brutally killed a woman. The trial judge deemed the facts of the case to accord with the worst kind of wilful murder and thus sentenced each of the appellants to death. The issue in the case on appeal was whether or not the trial judge had erred in reaching the conclusion of imposing the death sentence. The question was essentially whether or not there were "extenuating circumstances or mitigating factors which warranted lesser punishment"Ume v The State [2006] SC 836 at [68].

Margaret Delahunty, the Respondent, was an 80 year old woman who had been smoking since she was 12 years old, at one stage smoking up to 30 cigarettes a day. She was diagnosed with cancer 1995 and sued Player & Wills (Ireland) Ltd and Gallaher (Dublin) Ltd (the Appellants) for personal injuries allegedly caused by the cigarettes that she had smoked. The Appellants sought to have this claim dismissed on the basis that the pleadings disclosed "no reasonable cause of action or, alternatively, under the inherent jurisdiction of the court." The High Court refused to dismiss the claim.

The deed provided for the cession in securitatem debiti of Bryant's "right, title and interest to all book debts and other debts and claims of whatsoever nature" to the bank. The issue, therefore, was whether or not the terms of the deed were broad enough to encompass Bryant's claim against the appellants. CDA Loxton SC, on behalf of the appellants, contended that the plain, ordinary and popular meaning of the words "and other debts and claims of whatsoever nature" were not capable of being restricted to book debts. These words were unambiguous and were intended to give wider security.

558–562 and 563, paras. 108–114 and 119. The appellants argued that the discretion conferred on the President and the Minister for Home Affairs by sections 8 and 10 of the ISA could only be exercised if the fact – which was jurisdictional in nature – that the appellants were likely to act or to continue acting in a manner prejudicial to Singapore's security could be objectively established. However, the Court concluded that the discretion conferred by the ISA on the President and the Minister for Home Affairs by those provisions, properly construed, did not involve a jurisdictional fact.

According to the Court of Appeal, the burden of proof of justifying the lawfulness of the appellants' detention was, in the first instance, on the detaining authority. This burden of proof could be discharged by evidence that the President, acting in accordance with advice of the Cabinet or an authorized minister, was satisfied that the detention was necessary for national security purposes, and by the production of the detention order. Once the detaining authority had discharged the initial burden of proof, a burden of proof fell on the appellants to challenge their detention on GCHQ grounds.Chng Suan Tze, pp.

Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. P.P. (1994), the Court of Appeal noted that the appellants were essentially seeking to challenge the view taken by the Minister that Jehovah's Witnesses' refusal to carry out National Service was a threat to national security. The Court regarded this as a non-justiciable issue and declined to allow the appellants to bring an application for judicial review of Order No. 405/1995.Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. MITA (1996), pp. 305–306, para. 36. The Court only discussed proportionality in the context of the administrative law doctrine of Wednesbury unreasonableness and not with respect to Art.

The complaints asked that judgments be entered declaring § 6 unconstitutional and ordering the Secretary of State to issue passports to appellants. Appellant-plaintiffs alleged that § 6 was unconstitutional as, inter alia, "a deprivation without due process of law of plaintiff's constitutional liberty to travel a road, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." The three-judge District Court rejected appellants' contentions, sustained the constitutionality of § 6 of the Control Act, and granted the Secretary's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the enactment by Congress of § 6 was a valid exercise of the power of Congress to protect and preserve the Government against the threat posed by the world Communist movement and that the regulatory scheme bore a reasonable relation thereto. In the US Supreme Court, appellants attacked § 6, both on its face and as applied, as an unconstitutional deprivation of the liberty guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

Judge Wilson denied their petition. On September 7, 2012, the Proposed Defendant Intervenors (the appellants) filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.Association des Eleveurs de Canards et D’Oies du Quebec, et al v. Kamala Harris, et al.

The appellants had the State Attorney. The court found that an applicant may not seek to base a case on allegations contained in the respondent's answering affidavit where that case has not, in some way, been foreshadowed in the founding affidavit.199B.

Because Ohio chose to domesticate these foreign corporations, these corporations became entitled to equal protection with all other domestic corporations established under Ohio law. Ohio's ad valorem tax impermissibly discriminates between domestic and foreign corporations, denying appellants equal protection under Ohio law.

In 2019, Clement was an attorney for the appellants in the landmark Rucho v. Common Cause Supreme Court case, in which partisan gerrymandering was declared a nonjusticiable issue. In September 2020, Clement joined the list of President Donald Trump's potential Supreme Court candidates.

The court a quo, however, found that the statements were indeed defamatory, that qualified privilege did not cover their distribution to non-NEHAWU members, and that the appellants were liable for their failure to take steps to prevent such distribution. They appealed this decision.

Arundel's brother Thomas Arundel, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was exiled for life.Tuck (1985), p. 210. Richard then took his persecution of adversaries to the localities. While recruiting retainers for himself in various counties, he prosecuted local men who had been loyal to the appellants.

Second, even if Blackie had such a right, we see no > need for appellants to assert his right jus tertii. Blackie can clearly > speak for himself. West Publishing featured the case in its 1996 book Blackie the Talking Cat and Other Favorite Judicial Opinions.

Society is entitled and bound to protect itself > against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is > an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilised. I would answer the certified question > in the negative and dismiss the appeals of the appellants against > conviction.

In 1957 American Trust Co. (founded 1901)The American Trust Company was a bank established in Charlotte in 1901.Estate of J. Luther Snyder, George C. Snyder and American Trust Company, Executors Appellants, v. United States of America, Appellee., 285 F.2d 857 (4th Cir.

The case began in 2011, but had been moved to the desk of McGovern J after Kelly J was accused of objective bias. Brian and Mary Patricia O'Donnell, the appellants, were a married couple who brought a motion to the Court in order to remove any ownership they had in a variety of companies and properties. They sought to transfer them to their two sons, Blake O'Donnell and Bruce O'Donnell, the other two appellants. They had applied to the Supreme Court for a stay on an order made by McGovern J, which adjudicated their relationship with the plaintiffs in that case and Bank of Ireland, the respondent in this case.

The first and second respondents (as applicants) sought an order in a Local Division against the appellants (as respondents) declaring that their purported dismissal from the employ of the Transvaal Provincial Administration had been unlawful. The respondents' foundational allegation—that they were afforded no hearing—formed no part of the grounds upon which they obtained relief in the court a quo. That court, having regard to the averments made by the appellants (together with such facts as were common cause), held that, although the respondents had indeed been given a hearing, it had not been one which complied with the requirements of the audi rule.

The sale was had, the present appellants becoming the purchasers. On May 8, 1875, Branch, Sons & Co., H. P. Hoadely, and C. S. Plank--holding bonds of the (old) Montgomery and West Point Railroad Company not secured by mortgage-- through Pettus & Dawson and Watts & Sons, their solicitors, exhibited a bill in equity in the same court against the present appellants, the Western Railroad Company, the Montgomery and West Point Railroad Company, and others. They sued for themselves as well as for all other creditors of the last-named company who should come in and make themselves complainants and contribute to the expenses of the suit.

In December 1387, at Radcot Bridge, the Appellants clashed with the royal army, headed by Robert de Vere and Sir Thomas Molineux, Constable of Chester Castle; de Vere was defeated and forced to flee the country. Mortimer himself killed Molineux, who was one of the few casualties of the fight. According to Thomas Walsingham, Molineux, who had attempted to flee, pleaded for his life, but Mortimer pulled off Molinuex's helmet and stabbed him in the head with a dagger. Robert de Vere fleeing after his defeat at the Battle of Radcot Bridge During the brief rule of the Appellants, Mortimer was in high favour.

In a concurring judgment, Mahoney JA adopted the reasoning of the trial judge, holding the definition of "spouse" in the Old Age Security Act did not discriminate against the appellants. Mahoney noted there were a broad range of "non-spouses" who lived together. They too are denied a spousal allowance, but on the basis of their "non-spousal status". Mahoney JA held the Charter challenge was misplaced: in his view, the discrimination the appellants alleged was due to "the failure of the definition to comprehend the concept of common law marriage between persons of the same sex" and not on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Julian Burnside QC and S Senathiraja argued for the appellants that genocide is a part of customary international law, and that even without legislation criminalising genocide within Australia, Australian courts can try individuals accused of genocide. The “ten point plan” constituted genocide because it was a deliberate attempt to destroy the Aboriginal race. The appellants, particularly Ms Nulyarimma, gave evidence to the Court of attempted genocide. Further, Burnside QC argued that the respondent’s failure to pursue the World Heritage listing of Lake Eyre amounted to genocide as BHP's mining operations threatened the flora, fauna and livelihood of his people by allegedly draining the Lake.

The appellants claim was that Maori vendors could not have understood this concept and as such the Crown had breached "fiduciary or equitable duties of disclosure and fair dealing". Consequently, the appellants sought a declaration in the High Court that the Crown, to the extent it had ownership of the Waikato riverbed, it held it as a constructive trustee for the descendants of the original owners. The Crown's case was firstly, that the riverbed of the navigable parts of the river were vested in it by the Coal- mines Act Amendment Act 1903 and subsequent statutory provisions.Paki v Attorney-General (No 2) [2014] NZSC 118 at [4].

The clear intention of the parties was to cover all debts of whatsoever nature, including book debts. It was contended that so literal a construction of the cession would not lead to any absurdity; neither would it be contrary to the expressed intention of the parties. R Wise SC, on behalf of Mr Bryant, argued that, on a proper interpretation of the cession, it did not in its terms include Bryant's claim against the appellants. The parties' intention was that the words "and other debts and claims of whatsoever nature," like book debts, should relate to Bryant's trading business; the claim against the appellants did not.

When the trial date came around, the case was not ripe for hearing, and so was postponed until 4 October 1994. By that date, however, the application had been not completed, and therefore was postponed to 3 March 1995, but even by that date the application was no nearer resolution than it had been five months before; the matter was struck from the court roll. On 7 March 1995, the appellants withdrew their High Court application. On 10 November 1995, the appellants and the fourth respondent were summonsed to appear in the Regional Court in Durban ten days later on essentially the same drug-trafficking charge as before.

Saigh had a wife named Elizabeth, but had no children.Opinion, Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, "Michael Saigh and Andrew Saigh, Appellants v. William K. Saigh, et al., Respondent", February 6, 2007 He left $70 million to charity in his will, establishing the Fred Saigh Foundation.

Edyth L. Sikkenga, and Edyth L. Sikkenga, on her own behalf, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Regence Bluecross Blueshield of Utah, formerly known as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Utah; Associated Regional and University Pathologists, Inc.; John P. Mitchell; Jed H. Pitcher; and Frank Brown, Defendants-Appellees. No. 05-4088.

The appellants had pleaded guilty to a charge of arson, it being alleged that they had set fire to a rondavel classroom of a "native" school. The Crown evidence showed that the structure was immovable, but that there was no evidence to prove that it had been burned intentionally.

Any U.S. citizen who resides in Puerto Rico is effectively disenfranchised at the national level, as are all U.S. citizen residents of U.S. unincorporated territories.Igartúa–de la Rosa v. United States (Igartúa III) , 417 F.3d 145 (1st Cir. 2005) (en banc), GREGORIO IGARTÚA, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v.

Without permission or invitation, all > appellants as a group entered the McLoren backyard by hopping over a fence. > Micah Holland (Micah) and Miliotti entered first. Jason and Hein followed > approximately ten to fifteen feet behind Micah and Miliotti. Micah > immediately entered the fort and Miliotti stood in the doorway.

After the battle, Woodstock and the other Appellants held a council with Richard at the Tower. Richard had no means of resisting their demands, and it was agreed that a further Parliament should be called in February 1388. The resulting Merciless Parliament saw a fullscale purge of Richard's household.

Montana, 453 U.S. at 618–619. The appellants also argued the tax violated the fourth prong of the test because it was not "fairly related to the services provided by the State" (e.g., the amount of the tax collected exceeds the cost of services provided).Commonwealth Edison Co. v.

A three-judge court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim (286 F Supp 968). It held that a State could limit access to its divorce courts by the requirement of a filing fee or other fees, even when they effectively barred appellants from commencing actions therein.

However, in some cases, appellants may pursue issues on appeal by filing both a petition for review as well as a petition for writ of habeas corpus.Nancy Morawetz, Back to Back to the Future - Lessons Learned from Litigation over the 1996 Restrictions on Judicial Review, 51 113,121 (2006-2007).

"A complaint dated September 10, 1954 charged appellants with displaying for sale paper- covered obscene booklets, fourteen of which were annexed under the general title of "Nights of Horror." The complaint requested that appellants be enjoined from further distribution of the booklets, that they be required to surrender to the sheriff for destruction all copies in their possession, and, upon failure to do so, that the sheriff be commanded to seize and destroy those copies". The fact that the sheriff was responsible for handling this civil action was partly why the case had issues with due process. Kingsley failed to contest the filing and a judge at trial ruled that the books were indeed obscene.

The appellants submitted that the control of firearms was a policing matter and due to the fact that statute regulated such power, did not make their control any less. The appellants also argued that because a licensing function had been conferred on Garda Superintendents, as persona designata, that power could be exercised at absolute discretion. It was also submitted that the Firearms Acts had the intention of local level senior officers granting firearm certificates. Finally, it was submitted that; it was not logical that the Oireachtas would remove, from the Commissioner, any power to ensure minimum acceptable standards of public safety; such a structure would be inconsistent with the purpose of the police force.

He received his education at the English College, Douai, where he arrived on 6 August 1587. Two years later he went to the English College, Rome, and was one of a group of eight priests sent from there on the English mission in April 1592. Clark took an active part in the Archpriest Controversy: he was one of the "appellants", the 33 priests who signed the appeal against George Blackwell dated from Wisbech Castle, 17 November 1600. An attempt was made to give to the first clause of the breve of Pope Clement VIII, in favour of the appellants (5 October 1602), the appearance of restoring to them the canonical faculties which had been recently withdrawn.

An appellant in person is someone who by their own choice, or because their former counsel is criticised and has withdrawn, is conducting their own appeal at a Crown Court or at the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. The number of appellants who choose to do this are exceptionally small, mainly due to the inherent risks involved, appellants who serve a custodial sentence can have part of that sentence ordered to be served again if the court is of the view that the application is without merit. They must also understand highly complex court procedures, prepare detailed legal paperwork and orally argue a full legal appeal case in front of three High Court judges and a full court.

In April 2008, the Center petitioned the Pennsylvania Supreme Court seeking relief for alleged violation of the civil rights of those young defendants. The court initially denied the application for relief, then in January 2009 after charges of corruption against the both judges surfaced, it reconsidered in favor of the appellants.

These submissions often included expert advice and opinion from other parties. Each submission was then reviewed by all Appellants and Respondents, and submissions in reply lodged. In some cases, additional expert advice was included. During the hearing each party was then able cross examine witness, in particular expert witnesses, giving evidence.

Thus, the JCPC held that appeals to it from Grenada had been legitimately abolished as of 21 February 1985. Since Mitchell and the 18 other appellants had filed their appeal in July 1985, the JCPC was not entitled to hear their appeals. In 1991, Grenada re-established appeals to the JCPC.

In the high court, Pretorius AJ agreed and granted her the relief that she had sought. Once the appellants came to learn of that order, they applied for its rescission. Ismail AJ, who heard the rescission application, dismissed it with costs, essentially because he was satisfied that Pretorius AJ was correct.

The case was appealed in 1996 before the Court of Appeal for Ontario by the Church of Scientology and one of the individual defendants, Jacqueline Matz. The appellants advanced numerous grounds of appeal, some of which were abandoned at the hearing, and the remainder of which were rejected by the Court.

These allegations are similar, although not as grave, as those made by appellants in Braunfeld v. Brown, ante, p. 366 U.S. 599. Since the decision in that case rejects the contentions presented by these appellees on the merits, we need not decide whether appellees have standing to raise these questions.

Iberia HAMPTON et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Edward V. HANRAHAN et al., Defendants- Appellees, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, September 12, 1979, page 1, paragraph 13, Law Resource O'Neal joined the Party and quickly rose in the organization, becoming Director of Chapter security and Hampton's bodyguard.

Resulting court cases gave control of the high school to District 150 in 1967. Appellate case which decided that Richwoods Community High School was part of District 150. Full name: Albert C. Fuller, et al., and Board of Education, Community High School District No. 312, Peoria County, Illinois, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.

This was also in defiance of the Obscene Publications Act of 1959. Arnold was convicted with three offences of distributing and showing indecent photographs of children, contrary to 1 (1)(b), which prohibits distributing or showing such indecent photographs. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal. They also appealed against their convictions.

Justice William O. Douglas took issue with the majority on two grounds. First, he would not have dismissed the claims of the 12 other appellants as unripe, arguing that consideration of a declaratory judgment in the case would be proper.United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. at 115-120 (Douglas, J., dissenting).

Théberge applied for an injunction, an accounting of profits, and damages against the appellants at the Quebec Superior Court.Théberge v. Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain inc.,[2002] 2 S.C.R 336, 2002 SCC 34 The case was appealed to the Court of Appeal for Quebec and ultimately to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court began with a recitation of the relevant factual and procedural background, and then turned to first question presented in the statement, whether "appellants sustained their burden of providing that the portion of [the statute] which delineates the boundaries of the Congressional districts in Manhattan Island segregates eligible voters by race and place of origin in violation [of the Constitution]."376 U.S. at 56 The Court accepted the findings of the majority of the District Court that the appellants failed to prove that the New York Legislature was either motivated by racial considerations or in fact drew the districts on racial lines. The Court accepted that there may have been evidence which could have supported an inference that the Legislature was moved by racial considerations, but found that there was also evidence supporting the contrary inference that was "equally, or more, persuasive."376 U.S. at 56-57 The Court accepted the finding that appellants failed to demonstrate that the statute was "the product of a state contrivance to segregate on the basis of race or place of origin," and therefore upheld the District Court's decision.

In response, the city adopted zoning ordinances that placed the owners' property in a zone in which property may be devoted to one-family dwellings, accessory buildings, and open-space uses, with density restrictions permitting appellants to build between one and five single-family residences on their tract. The city expressed its intention to acquire the Agins parcel for open space, and actually commenced condemnation proceedings to take title to it. Later, the city abandoned the condemnation, and adopted the ordinance in issue. Without having sought approval for development of their tract under the ordinances, appellants brought suit against the city in state court, alleging that the city had taken their property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

" The case was heard by a three judge panel of the District Court. Appellants presented maps, statistics, and other evidence demonstrating that African-Americans and Puerto Ricans comprised 86.3 per cent of the Eighteenth District, 28.5 per cent of the Nineteenth District, 27.5 per cent of the Twentieth District, but only 5.1 per cent of the Seventeenth District.376 U.S. at 54 A majority of the District Court panel found that appellants had not made out their case.376 U.S. at 55 One judge concluded that "no proof was offered by any party that the specific boundaries created by [the statute] were drawn on racial lines or that the Legislature was motivated by considerations of race, creed or country or origin in creating the districts.

Justice Roberts delivered the decision of the Court, reversing the judgment of the Supreme Court of Mississippi. > The statute as construed in these cases makes it a criminal offense to > communicate to others views and opinions respecting governmental policies, > and prophesies concerning the future of our own and other nations. As > applied to the appellants it punishes them although what they communicated > is not claimed or shown to have been done with an evil or sinister purpose, > to have advocated or incited subversive action against the nation or state, > or to have threatened any clear and present danger to our institutions or > our government. What these appellants communicated were their beliefs and > opinions concerning domestic measures and trends in national and world > affairs.

There was one conspiracy in > this case — the continuing scheme of buying and reselling heroin. > The proofs of the government show that all appellants were associated in > this scheme, some by virtue of selling or delivering the heroin to the > Poliafico group, others because of being associated with the group in > carrying out the scheme, collecting money through resales of the drug, > making payments to suppliers, or carrying on negotiations for the purchase > or resale. All appellants knew of the conspiracy. The suppliers knew that > the Poliafico group must resell the heroin at a profit; and all associated > with Poliafico in the resale of the heroin knew that Poliafico must buy it > from suppliers and that the resales must be at a profit.

The Feres Doctrine prohibits by law, negligence claims by active duty military personnel against the United States Government. A clarifying discussion of the Feres Doctrine was written in the decision of Martinelli v. United States Department of the Army, 1987.ESTATE OF Eugene Lenny MARTINELLI, Rose Martinelli, Administratrix, and Rose Martinelli, individually, Appellants, v.

In People v. Ronald Onofre, et al., the appeal consisted of several cases consolidated into one. The appellants were challenging the constitutionality of a 1965 law, New York Penal Law § 130.38, which made it a misdemeanor to engage in "deviate sexual intercourse" (defined to include anal and oral but not vaginal sex) with another person.

Democrats sued on basis of one man, one vote, however, California Democrats supported the Indiana GOP's plan. The National Republican Committee filed an amicus brief in support of the Indiana Democrats,Brief Amicus Curiae of the Republican National Committee in Support of Appellees, Susan J. DAVIS, et al., Appellants, v. Irwin C. BANDEMER, et al.

In British administrative law, the applicant needs to have a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates.Senior Courts Act 1981 s.31(3). This sufficient interest requirement has been construed liberally by the courts. As Lord Diplock put it:Inland Revenue Commissioners Appellants v National Federation of Self- Employed and Small Businesses Ltd.

00-1739, 00-1813: United States, Appellee, v. Vincent Michael Marino and John J. Patti III, Defendants, Appellants. January 14, 2002 Following Carrozza's sentencing in April 1992, it took nearly two years for the "renegade faction" to plan its revenge. Ciampi and Michael P. Romano, Sr. visited Carrozza several times in prison in Pennsylvania.

During his incumbency Belsunce fought against Jansenism. He attended, 1727, the Synod of Embrun where Jean Soanen was condemned. He opposed with all his power Colbert of Pamiers. In spite of the protest of the Parliament of Aix-en-Provence, he instructed his priests to refuse absolution to the appellants against the Bull Unigenitus.

In the light of this approach, Yong C.J.'s acceptance of the Minister's view "as conclusive, refusing to question it on the basis of not wanting to transgress the legal/merits dichotomy" resulted in a failure to balance the interest of the appellants against that of the State.Thio, "The Secular Trumps the Sacred", p. 84.

That same year, Bratt consulted for the appellants on the Kentucky v. Wasson lawsuit, which went all the way to Kentucky's Supreme Court and eventually struck down the state's criminalization of sex between same-sex partners. The decision was seen as a major win for LBGT rights. She is currently a professor emeritus at the University of Kentucky.

Arundel was a key member of the group of nobles called the Lords Appellant, who had emerged as opponents of Richard II and the royal favourite Robert de Vere, Duke of Ireland. Mortimer was closely associated with them and is known to have visited Arundel's house regularly during 1387, the critical year in the Appellants' rise to power.

The Court of Appeal indicated that to set aside an assessment of contributory the appellants would need to show that the trial judge had either made an error of principle or reached a conclusion wholly outside the range of reasonable possibilities. at paragraph 16. They quickly dismissed the suggestion saying that appellant's arguments "do not get off the ground".

In 1997, the Coalition party proposed a “ten point plan” to reform the operation of native title in Australia. The plan eventually became the Native Title Amendment 1998. The appellants claimed that the consequences of the “ten point plan” amounted to genocide as it severely restricted and disadvantaged Indigenous Australians' land ownership, livelihood and mental health.

The Turf Club's ability to enforce compliance with its rules were grounded on the law of contract.E.G -v- The Society of Actuaries in Ireland [2017] IEHC 392 at 63. The Courts also dismissed the appeal made by O'Connell and Lambe stating that the fundamental premise of which the appellants arguments' was based were false.[2015] IESC 57 at 51.

In terms of s 1(ii), consent may be "express or tacit [...] in writing or otherwise." and hence were not "unlawful occupiers" as defined in the Act.s 1. They should not, therefore, be evicted. The appellants also depended on the provision of the red cards—these, they argued, entitled them to remain in undisturbed possession of their housesPara 40.

The court heard oral arguments on October 8, 2013. Erin E. Murphy, counsel at Bancroft PLLC, argued for the appellants. Attorney Michael T. Morley was counsel of record for Appellant McCutcheon and was primarily responsible for preparing his principal brief. United States Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. argued for the appellees: the Federal Election Commission and the Obama administration.

In S v Benjamin en 'n Ander (1980), an important case in South African criminal procedure, the two appellants were brothers who had been charged with both attempted murder and robbery with aggravated circumstances. The appellants had attempted to kill S by shooting him with a firearm and, secondly, had used violence on S and had threatened him and had led him to believe that force would be used in that they had shot him with a firearm and had threatened him with such firearm with intent to steal the money in the custody of S. They were convicted and separate sentences on each count were imposed. In an appeal the court held that both charges had included a conviction of an act of assault, i.e. the shooting of S with a firearm.

The appellants' brief was filed by California Attorney General John Van de Kamp and several of his assistants. Solicitor General Charles Fried filed an amicus brief on behalf of the federal government urging reversal. The American Civil Liberties Union and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees urged affirmance in their amici. Oral arguments were held in October 1986.

The case was an appeal from a conviction on a charge of arson, which requires by definition that the affected property be immovable. As it appeared that the state had failed to prove sufficiently that the complainant's "house" was immovable, the court substituted a conviction of malicious injury to property, although the appellants had been acquitted on such a charge.

Hall was called to the bar in 1922 and spent the next thirty- five years in private practice. He became a leading litigator in the Saskatchewan bar, with a reputation for being hard-nosed. In 1928, at 29 years of age, Hall appeared in the Supreme Court of Canada as counsel for the appellants in Glenn and Babb v. Schofield.Glenn and Babb v.

Four African-American citizens filed suit against the railroads seeking to restrain them from complying with the law. They filed suit against the railroads before the law went into effect but amended their claim after the law became effective. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld an order sustaining the railroads' demurrers and dismissing the suit. Appellants sought review.

After the Appellants' victory at Radcot Bridge (December 1387) and before the Merciless Parliament met in February 1388, De La Pole shrewdly fled to Paris, thus escaping the fate of Sir Nicholas Brembre and Chief Justice Robert Tresilian. He remained in France for the remainder of his life. Sentenced in his absence, his title and estates were stripped from him.

In 1397, he took his revenge on the Appellants, many of whom were executed or exiled. The next two years have been described by historians as Richard's "tyranny". In 1399, after John of Gaunt died, the king disinherited Gaunt's son, Henry Bolingbroke, who had previously been exiled. Henry invaded England in June 1399 with a small force that quickly grew in numbers.

He outlined a foreign policy that reversed the actions of the appellants by seeking peace and reconciliation with France, and promised to lessen the burden of taxation on the people significantly. Richard ruled peacefully for the next eight years, having reconciled with his former adversaries. Still, later events would show that he had not forgotten the indignities he perceived.Harriss (2005), p. 468.

The appellants obtained a favourable hearing at Rome. Lister's tract was suppressed by papal Brief (May 1601), and Blackwell rebuked for his unreasonable conduct. The treatise Adversus factiosos was incorporated into Christopher Bagshaw's Relatio compendium turbarum; a portion of it was reprinted in Thomas Graves Law, Historical Sketch of Conflicts between Jesuits and Seculars in the Reign of Elizabeth (London, 1889), appendix D.

" MacArthur was quoted by Justice Betty Ellerin of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department in the 23 July 1987 decision on the case "Dallas Parks, Respondent, v. George Steinbrenner et al., Appellants." The quote used was about him being "proud to have protected American freedoms, like the freedom to boo the umpire.

Three judges, Sir Leonard Costello, Charu Chandra Biswas and Ronald Francis Lodge, formed a special bench for the case. Both sides retained their former lawyers. The hearing began on 14 November 1938. Appellants' side concentrated on what had really happened in Darjeeling, arguing that there should be proof that the kumar was not dead and of who, if anybody, had been cremated.

On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in Hollingsworth v. Perry that the appellants had no standing to appeal. They remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit and vacated their ruling, leaving only the district court's ruling stand. Same-sex marriages resumed two days later when the Ninth Circuit lifted the stay on the district court's ruling.

The first part treats the events of 1387-88 (Merciless Parliament). "Instead of calling his historical personages by name, Gower follows the literary convention of using heraldic terms, especially those based upon the names of birds and animals." "the King's party are throughout called greedy, treacherous plotters, and the Appellants model Englishmen." The second part skips to 1397 where Richard exacted his revenge.

Texas, and that the UMCJ provisions concerning consensual, non-injurious sexual conduct are inconsistent with current sexual mores in American society. Woodhull Freedom Foundation et al v. United States: On February 20, 2019, NCSF joined with allies in filing a Brief in Support of Appellants challenging FOSTA, the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017.

The House of Lords' judgment was given on 13 October 2005. Parties bringing judicial review must have sufficient interest in the challenged subject.Senior Court Act 1981, s 31(3). Professor Mullen therefore suggests that it is at first glance surprising that standing was not contested: the appellants brought proceedings in their personal capacities, yet had not even been threatened with prosecution.

Macht and Macht v. Department of Assessments of Baltimore City, 266 Md. 602; 296 A.2d 162 (1972). Concurrent with this case, Hartman also argued a competitive bidding suit in the Court of Appeals. The Appellants maintained that the contract between the City and Monsanto for the construction of a pyrolysis plant was null as City did not solicit competitive bidding.

In Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. P.P. (1994), counsel for the appellants argued that there had to be a "clear and immediate danger" to public order before the right of freedom of religion could be restricted, and in this case the restriction was unjustified since there had been no such threat at all.Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. P.P. (1994), pp.

Wittman v. Personhuballah, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the appellants lacked standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to pursue their appeal., 136 S. Ct. 1732, 1733 (2016). The case dealt with redistricting by the Virginia Legislature of Virginia's 3rd congressional district and allegations of gerrymandering based upon race.

The appellants' lawyers, Willis S. Moore for the state and district attorneys, and George E. Chamberlain and Albert H. Putney, for the governor, argued that the state had an overriding interest to oversee and control the providers of education to the children of Oregon. One of them even went so far as to call Oregonian students "the State's children". They contended that the State's interest in overseeing the education of citizens and future voters was so great that it overrode the parents' right to choose a provider of education for their child, and the right of the child to influence the parent in this decision. With respect to the appellees' claims that their loss of business infringed on Fourteenth Amendment rights, the appellants' lawyers countered that since appellees were corporations, not individuals, the Fourteenth Amendment did not directly apply to them.

The appellant generally submits a document of legal arguments called a "brief," a written attempt to persuade the judges of appellate court that the decision of the trial court should be reversed. If selected for an "oral argument," appellants may present a short spoken argument to the court. No additional pieces of evidence or witnesses are considered. The ruling made by the appellate court is usually final.

In the lower courts, the respondents in Hill v. McDonough were James V. Crosby, Jr., the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, and Charlie Crist, the Attorney General of Florida. In the lower courts, both Crosby and Crist were defendants-appellants. Since the lower court rulings, James V. Crosby, Jr. has been replaced by James R. McDonough, the interim Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections.

In May 2013, Trump launched a legal challenge against the Scottish government's decision to grant planning permission for the wind farm. The appellants, Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd, opposed consent for the development. It was challenged on two grounds. First, it was claimed that the Scottish Minister’s consent under the Electricity Act 1989 section 36 to build a wind farm was ultra vires.

In its 2009-2010 term, there were three appeals against the statute at the United States Supreme Court, all challenging its constitutionality. All three appellants were convicted of honest services fraud in 2006 or 2007. Weyhrauch v. United States, by former Alaska state legislator Bruce Weyhrauch, deals with whether a public official can be charged with honest services fraud without violating his duty under state law.

The Court accordingly held that, because it was unanimous that the rates levied by the second respondent were lawful, the attack made on them by the appellants had to be dismissed. As the Court was evenly divided on the lawfulness of the contributions levied by the first respondent on the second and third respondents, the appeal on those issues was not successful and had to be dismissed.

Hedges and the other plaintiffs-appellants filed their appeal brief on December 10, 2012. In an article in December 24, 2012, Hedges opined that unless the courts ruled in his favor, "a gulag state will be cemented into place." He further voiced his opinion, provided that the Second Court of Appeals upholds Judge Forrest's ruling, the case will most likely be before the Supreme Court within weeks.

Following law school, Newman was a law clerk for Judge Jean S. Breitenstein on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. He then conducted test case litigation for the Center for Law and Social Policy, aimed at increasing access to health care for the poor and minorities.David E. BRYAN, Jr., Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Edward I. KOCH, Mayor, City of New York, Et Al. ,.

Schoelen was born in Rota, Spain, where her father, a career naval officer, was stationed. She received a Bachelor of Arts from the University of California at Irvine in 1990 and Juris Doctor from the George Washington University Law School in 1993. During law school, she worked as a law clerk for the National Veterans Legal Services Project, representing appellants at the Board of Veterans' Appeals.

Appellant Micah unsuccessfully attempted > to pull open the locked desk drawer. Next, appellants Micah and Hein, in a > threatening manner, shouted words demanding that McLoren turn over the key > to the locked desk drawer. Appellant Micah, when threatening McLoren and > demanding the key, shouted, “Give me the key fool” and “Give me the key, > ese. You want shit with Gumbys, ese?” McLoren refused to relinquish the key.

Both appellants paid all taxes required to do business in Ohio, all taxes on real and personal property in Ohio, and all franchise taxes. Additionally, Wheeling paid ad valorem taxes to West Virginia on all accounts receivable, including on those accounts receivable taxed by Ohio, pursuant to Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 US 193. National Distillers' accounts receivable were taxed by neither Virginia nor New York.

In 2014, An Bórd Pleanála (the respondent in the appeal) was granted planning permission for a wind farm in County Tipperary. Ms. Grace and Mr. Sweetman (the appellants in the appeal) objected to the development of a wind farm in an area known to be a habitat of hen harriers, a species protected under European Union law. The appellants applied to the High Court for an order of certiorari (court process to seek judicial review) quashing that decision on grounds that the respondent failed to carry out an adequate environmental impact assessment as required by the Habitats Directive and the Planning and Development Act 2000 (the 2000 Act). The central question before the court was whether the Irish rules relating to "standing in environmental matters" had to be revised in light of recent jurisprudence from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

An appeal against the approval of a Private Timber Applications from EE & IC Porter resulted in a hearing that heard evidence for 17 days . Hearing dates – 21, 22, 23 & 24 February, 16 and 17 March; 4, 5 and 6 April; 22, 23 & 24 May and 4, 14 and 25 July There were six appellants Meander Valley Council, J & M Hawkes, N Hoofman, PA Elkin, J Lies, J King; The appellants were all "prescribed persons" under the Forest Practices Act Section 7(4) with three respondents; EE & IC Porter (landowners who submitted the application, and the Forests Practices Authority who approved the application. Other parties provided submissions to the appeal: Private Forests Tasmania, the Authority accepting and assessing the application; Gunns Ltd, a forestry company purchasing the wood from the landowner; The Environment Association, a local conservation group and Mr Lockhart, a local resident. The Tribunal received 12 submissions in writing.

Between 2011 and 2013 around 40% of claimants found 'fit for work' appealed to a tribunal and around 40% of those appeals were successful. The number of external appeals dropped markedly over the course of 2013, although most appellants who do reach the tribunal stage now see their 'fit for work' decision overturned. During 2012, a parliamentary committee heard evidence from welfare advisors that, in nearly two out of three successful appeals to tribunals against fit-for-work decisions, appellants were seeing their points rise from zero in the original assessments – meaning that the original WCA had detected no relevant disabilities at all – to at least 15 points after the tribunals had independently assessed their claims. Parliament's Office of Science and Technology analysed the WCA's performance and found that "the number of fit-for-work decisions being overturned on appeal has led to questions about the reliability of the assessment process".

The State of California allowed a number of tax exemptions one of which was an exemption of property tax for veterans of World War II. Anyone desiring to claim the exemption was required to complete a standard form of application and submit the form with the local tax assessor. In 1954, the form was revised to add a loyalty oath, which the applicant had to sign: "I do not advocate the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means, nor advocate the support of a foreign government against the United States in event of hostilities." The appellants refused to sign the oath and contended the condition of requiring the oath to obtain a tax exemption was unconstitutional. The assessors denied the exemption solely because the appellants had refused to execute the oath by signature.

A civil action was brought in the New York Supreme Court by Mr. Wiest's mother against the owner of Twilo and other defendants. In denying certain defendants’ motion to dismiss various causes of action, the Appellate Division First Department wrote: The decedent's illegal behavior pales in comparison to appellants' wrongdoing, which consisted of countenancing drug abuse on the premises and secreting stricken patrons, including the decedent on the night in question, in a back room, instructing appellants' personnel to refrain from calling an ambulance and misleading police officers responding to the scene, thus depriving these patrons of timely medical attention. This was not the first fatal overdose associated with Twilo. In June 1998 a 22 year old recent NYU graduate named Brigit Murray died from what first appeared to be a drug overdose at Twilo but was concluded by medical professionals to be an aneurysm triggered by first time ecstasy use.

It is important not to play down that sense of shock since admitting > that the decision shocks, and identifying why, are the keys to explaining > why it is also correct."[2004] UKHL 8, Lord Rodger at para 67. [ > _Underlines_ and brackets added] Lord Rodger explains: > "At the time when Mrs Burnett was sequestrated, the appellants were > disponees to whom the disponer had delivered the disposition but who had not > yet recorded it in the register and were accordingly not yet infeft [ie: > they did not have ownership]"[2004] UKHL 8, Lord Rodger at para 95. > [brackets added] Because of the nature of the race to the register (see above), this meant that: > " the respondent [Ms Burnett's Trustee] has done nothing more than take > advantage of the mistake or error of his rivals, the appellants [the > Graingers], in failing to get off their mark and record the disposition from > Mrs Burnett promptly.

As the judge observed in Gilliam v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., where Monty Python sued for damages caused by broadcast of the mutilated version, "According to the network, appellants should have anticipated that most of the excised material contained scatological references inappropriate for American television and that these scenes would be replaced with commercials, which presumably are more palatable to the American public." Monty Python won the case.

Even if the appellants had sold the property when they sold the farm, they would still have been in legal possession of the property until the purchasers had taken lawful possession—i.e. moved into the farm. Therefore, they could not be guilty of larceny, because they legally possessed the property. While they might be guilty of fraudulent conversion or larceny by bailee, the prosecution did not charge those crimes.

The court also affirmed that while one can forever speculate about the consequences of negligent behaviour one will never know what damages should be attributed to an act until it has actually happened. The High Court made clear that the result of Chapmans negligence could have been anticipated. Specifically, that it is reasonably foreseeable that driving negligently could result in another person being struck. The appellants argument failed here.

" The ruling subsequently was upheld by the Florida Third District Court of Appeal, which stated "Following the ineluctable conclusion that the Village ordinance does not restrict a fundamental right or suspect class, [two cases previously discussed] control the analysis in this case. The ordinance is constitutional. We agree with the trial court's parting observation that the appellants 'still have a remedy. They can petition the Village Council to change the ordinance.

The words "of the opposite sex" in the definition of "spouse" > specifically exclude homosexual couples from claiming a spousal > allowance.Egan v Canada, [1995] 2 SCR 513 at 598. Cory J argued this distinction was not based on anything other than the appellants' sexual orientation and was therefore discriminatory. Regarding the section 1 analysis, Iacobucci J identified the objective of the impugned legislation as "the alleviation of poverty in elderly households".

Jerome S. Glazer and Louis A. Glazer, Appellants, v. Guilford Glazer, Appellee, 374 F.2d 390 (5th Cir. 1967) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - 374 F.2d 390 (5th Cir. 1967) - January 10, 1967 - Rehearing Denied May 2, 1967 In 1955, I.B Cohen sold his share back in Glazer Steel to the three brothers with Guilford's interest increasing to 38.12% and Jerome's and Louis's share becoming 30.94% each.

British History On-line In the 1860s a proposed unification of the benefice of St Edmunds with St Nicholas and that of St Mary Woolnoth with St Mary Woolchurch Haw Times 1861 was vigorously defended by St Nicholas Acons' discrete churchwardens.On appeal from the Arches Court of Canterbury. Between the rector and churchwardens of the parish of St. Nicholas Acons, appellants, and the London Diocese, respondents. Lambeth Palace Library H5155.

Manitoba Fisheries Ltd v R (1978), [1979] 1 SCR 101, is a leading Canadian property law decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on expropriation. The court held that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act, RSC 1970, c F-13, which granted a Crown corporation a monopoly over fish exports from Manitoba, deprived the appellants of goodwill. This deprivation amounted to an uncompensated regulatory taking (also known as a de facto expropriation).

The high court stated: "BLNR put the cart before the horse when it approved the permit before the contested case hearing," and "Once the permit was granted, Appellants were denied the most basic element of procedural due process – an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Our Constitution demands more".Hou v. Board of the Land and Natural Resources, 363 P.3d 224, 136 Haw.

The House of Lords found that the Parliament Act 1911 did not have any limitations that would prevent it being used to enact the Parliament Act 1949. The 1949 Act had therefore validly amended the requirements for a bill to use the Parliament Acts procedure and the Hunting Act, which was passed in accordance with these amended requirements, was consequently also held to be valid; the appellants' appeal was dismissed.

In oil and gas exploration, data is collected by taking measurements using instruments lowered into boreholes in geological formations. However, these measurements are not always useful to geologists. Schlumberger researchers (the appellants) developed a method to combine and analyze measurements to yield more meaningful information. The application described a process where the borehole measurements were recorded to magnetic tape and processed by a computer for mathematical processing and display.

Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1880). On appeal, the court found that Lasercomb's anticompetitive clauses within its license agreement were a misuse of copyright. Based on the patent misuse analogy, the copyright misuse defense was available to the appellants despite the fact that they had not agreed to the standard license agreement. Therefore, it was determined that Lasercomb should have been restricted from suing for copyright infringement by copyright misuse.

The Supreme Court judgment was delivered by Murray J. The appellants argued that s3(1) of the 1999 Act was unconstitutional in that, as a deportation order under it was for an indefinite period, this amounted to a disproportionate interference with the rights of the family under the Irish Constitution. The appellants also argued that s3(11) of the 1999 Act was incompatible with Article 15 of the Irish Constitution, in that it permitted an unlawful delegation of legislative powers to the Minister, in the absence of a sufficient statement of principles and policies in the legislation governing how the Minister should exercise his power to make a deportation order.Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice [2015] 2 ILRM 73; [2016] 2 IR 403; [2015] IESC 53 [3]. Alternatively, the appellant’s argued (on the same grounds) that their family rights under Article 8 of the ECHR were breached by the provisions of the 1999 Act.

These included the former Appellants Henry Bolingbroke, Earl of Derby, who was made Duke of Hereford, and Thomas de Mowbray, Earl of Nottingham, who was created Duke of Norfolk. Also among them were John and Thomas Holland, the king's half-brother and nephew, who were promoted from earls of Huntingdon and Kent to dukes of Exeter and Surrey respectively; the king's cousin Edward of Norwich, Earl of Rutland, who received Gloucester's French title of Duke of Aumale; Gaunt's son John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset, who was made Marquess of Somerset and Marquess of Dorset; John Montacute, 3rd Earl of Salisbury; and Lord Thomas le Despenser, who became Earl of Gloucester. With the forfeited lands of the convicted appellants, the king could reward these men with lands suited to their new ranks.McKisack (1959), pp. 483–4 A threat to Richard's authority still existed, however, in the form of the House of Lancaster, represented by John of Gaunt and his son Henry Bolingbroke, Duke of Hereford.

The certified question of appeal which the House of Lords was asked to consider was: > Where A wounds or assaults B occasioning him actual bodily harm (ABH) in the > course of a sado-masochistic encounter, does the prosecution have to prove > lack of consent on the part of B before they can establish A's guilt under > section 20 or section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861?[1994] > 1 AC 212, at 215 The Lords – by a bare majority, two out of five dissenting – answered this in the negative, holding that consent could not be a defence to these (typically overlapping) offences. Lord Templeman stated: > It is not clear to me that the activities of the appellants were exercises > of rights in respect of private and family life. But assuming that the > appellants are claiming to exercise those rights I do not consider that > Article 8 invalidates a law which forbids violence which is intentionally > harmful to body and mind.

Justice Binnie wrote that: :I have no doubt that privilege attaches to the House's relations with some of its employees, but the appellants have insisted on the broadest possible coverage without leading any evidence to justify such a sweeping immunity, or a lesser immunity, or indeed any evidence of necessity at all. ... The appellants having failed to establish the privilege in the broad and all-inclusive terms asserted, the respondents are entitled to have the appeal disposed of according to the ordinary employment and human rights law that Parliament has enacted with respect to employees within federal legislative jurisdiction. However, unrelated to the parliamentary privilege issue, the Court found that the Canadian Human Rights Act did not apply to Parliamentary employees, as their labour issues were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act. Therefore, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal did not have jurisdiction on the matter, and the appeal was allowed.

Before May 2011, it was not possible to apply for prerogative orders and declarations in the same set of legal proceedings. In Chan Hiang Leng Colin, the appellants contended that a declaration might be obtained in proceedings taken under Order 53 of the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeal, following Re Application by Dow Jones (Asia) Inc. (1987),Re Application by Dow Jones (Asia) Inc. [1987] S.L.R.(R.) 627 at 632, para.

The LICRA and the UEJF appealed the decision before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On August 23, 2004, the Ninth Circuit reversed the earlier holding, after finding that the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over the appellants, namely LICRA and UEJF. The court quoted the following criteria for the establishment of personal jurisdiction as stated in an earlier Ninth Circuit case, Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta National Inc.

There is no further reference after this date to Philippa, Chaucer's wife, and she is presumed to have died in 1387. He survived the political upheavals caused by the Lords Appellants, despite the fact that Chaucer knew some of the men executed over the affair quite well. On 12 July 1389, Chaucer was appointed the clerk of the king's works, a sort of foreman organising most of the king's building projects.Morley (1890), Vol.

Nor can the citizenship requirement be justified on the unproved premise that aliens are less permanent employees than citizens, or on other grounds asserted by appellants. 4\. While the State has an interest in defining its political community, and a corresponding interest in establishing the qualifications for persons holding state elective or important non-elective executive, legislative, and judicial positions, the broad citizenship requirement established by § 53 cannot be justified on this basis.

City of Milwaukee, Nichols et al. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts), each of which presented the question whether regulations embodied in municipal ordinances abridged the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the press secured against state invasion by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The appellants (Jehovah's Witnesses) were charged with a violation of a local ordinance that barred persons from distributing handbills on public streets or handing them out door-to-door.

Ramona Santorelli and Mary Lou Schloss, Appellants, et al., Defendants. Decided July 7, 1992 Van Voast has covered New York City as topless Harvey Van Toast, exposing her ideas to passers by and celebrities alike, and calling herself "the topless paparazzo"."Who Is the Topless Paparazzo?", The Daily Beast, September 15, 2011 Van Voast maintains that she created the Harvey Van Toast character as an entertainment persona and has never presented herself as an activist.

Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958), was a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the State of California's refusal to grant to ACLU lawyer Lawrence Speiser, a veteran of World War II, a tax exemption because that person refused to sign a loyalty oath as required by a California law enacted in 1954. The court reversed a lower court ruling that the loyalty oath provision did not violate the appellants' First Amendment rights.

The Catholic crusade against the movies, 1940-1975. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. After its American release, the New York State Board of Regents reportedly received "hundreds of letters, telegrams, postcards, affidavits and other communications" both protesting and defending the exhibition of the film. Three members of the board were subsequently ordered to examine it, and they concluded that "The Miracle" was "sacrilegious" and directed the appellants to show otherwise at a hearing.

Puerto Rico's sole congressional representation is through one non-voting member of the House called a Resident Commissioner. As residents of a U.S. territory, American citizens in Puerto Rico are disenfranchised at the national level, do not vote for the president or vice president of the U.S.,Igartúa–de la Rosa v. United States (Igartúa III) , 417 F.3d 145 (1st Cir. 2005) (en banc), GREGORIO IGARTÚA, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v.

In re Oriental Inland Steam Co, at 560. Lord Diplock noted that the editors of Buckley on the Companies Acts had treated that statement as authoritative from 1897 to the present time, and that Lord Diplock was content that this was correct. His Lordship then considered arguments by the appellants that Parliament may have intended something different when they used the term "beneficial ownership" in the Finance Act, which he also dismissed.

In September 2005, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the defendants' argument and affirmed the lower court's decision. "Appellants failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the applicability of the interoperability exception [of the DMCA]. The district court properly granted summary judgement in favor of Blizzard and Vivendi on the operability exception." The appeals court further ruled that bnetd circumvents copy protection in violation of the DMCA.

In S v Prins en 'n Ander, an important case in South African criminal procedure, the two appellants had been charged with both murder and robbery. They had attacked the complainant with a rake and he had died 9 days later from the injuries sustained from the attack. After the assault, they had robbed him. On appeal it was contended that there had been a duplication of charges with a subsequent duplication of convictions.

On the morning of 21 January the Convention ordered the entire National Guard to line both sides of the route to the scaffold. Louis was beheaded at the Place de la Revolution. Within the nation, "voters" and "appellants", those that were against the execution of Louis, swore undying hatred of each other. The rest of Europe, fearing the outcome of the French Revolution in their own countries, decreed a war of extermination against regicides.

Whitlam and Wilcox JJ ruled that customary international law did not form a part of Australian law and therefore genocide was not a crime under Australian law in the absence of legislation declaring genocide a crime. Merkel J dissented, finding that customary international law was incorporated into Australian law because of its status as jus cogens, but ultimately found that, because the respondents had no intent to commit genocide, the appellants' claim failed.

"We cannot see how the definitions could be more specific," he observed, "and the remote possibility that they could apply to an antique salt spoon or a woman's pipe does not require a finding of vagueness." Instead, the Levases had argued that the specificity had made those items illegal despite known lawful uses.Levas, 454–56 "As a matter of statutory construction, appellants are correct," Cummings wrote. But even so, that might not be a problem.

In 1978 he started his law practice at the law firm Riddell, Williams, Bullitt & Walkinshaw of Seattle, Washington. He was a principal in the law firm Casey Gordon Davis, P.S. from 1983 to 2002. This practice emphasized trial practice, business and commercial litigation, products liability and plaintiff personal injury, toxic tort and chemical exposure litigation, mediation and arbitration, court- appointed special master. In 1995, he was the appellants' counsel in Birklid v.

The court considered that the Lanham Act §43(a) covered the situation where the network had presented a garbled, distorted version of Monty Python's work, and also found "there is a substantial likelihood that, after a full trial, appellants will succeed in proving infringement of their copyright by ABC's broadcast of edited versions of Monty Python programs." One of the judges concurred with the overall finding, but disagreed about the applicability of the Lanham Act.

CSWA sued the City of NY in 1986, Chinese Staff and Workers Association et al., Appellants, v. City of New York et al., Respondents, for green lighting Henry Street Tower, a luxury residential development, arguing that the displacement of neighborhood residents and businesses caused by a proposed project is an environmental impact within the purview of SEQRA and CEQR, and the failure of respondents to consider these potential effects renders their environmental analysis invalid.

Their declared object was "[t]o block the development of > machines which might be constructed by others . . . " and "[t]o secure > patents on possible improvements of competing machines so as to "fence in" > those and prevent their reaching an improved state." These patents were the > major weapons in the campaign to subjugate the industry; they were also the > fruits of appellant's victory. The restoration of competition in the glass > container industry demands that appellants be deprived of these weapons.

Retrieved 6 September 2008. Drummond did not have to decide whether the Wik people or the Thayorre people actually were the holders of native title rights in respect of the land. On 22 March 1996 Justice Spender granted the appellants leave to appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court against the judgment. Subsequent to that grant leave, the High Court made orders that the appeal be removed into the High Court for determination by that court.

In 1984, Fisher was convicted of multiple counts of RICO violations, including continuing criminal conspiracy, drug trafficking, and murder, and was sentenced to life in prison without eligibility for parole.UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Kenneth THOMAS, Guy Thomas Fisher, Ishmael Muhammed, Frank Alphonse James, Thomas Forman, Wallace Rice, James Wheelings, Elmer Thomas Morris, Jr., Defendants-Appellants, accessed May 17, 2009. Fisher's conviction was facilitated by the testimony of his former mentor, associate, and rival, Leroy "Nicky" Barnes.

They were charged for kidnapping by federal authoritiesGeorge Krull and Michael Krull, Appellants, v. United States of America, Appellee on the grounds that kidnapping was a federal capital crime. If they were charged by the state of Georgia for rape they would still have faced execution, because rape was a capital crime in Georgia at the time. After President Dwight D. Eisenhower declined to commute their death sentences, the Krull brothers were executed in Georgia's electric chair.

At the time Fellows was decided, this case had reached the U.S. Supreme Court but had not yet been argued.Joshua L. Brown, The Tonawanda Indians, Letter to the Editor of the New York Times (February 4, 1858). The defendant-appellants, before the Court, unsuccessfully challenged the state statute under the Indian Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the federal Nonintercourse Act and the Treaty of Buffalo Creek between the federal government and the Senecas.New York ex rel.

The union negotiating team accepted these terms, but it was not ratified by the union membership. On April 18, 1979 nearly all of the 7,000 officers of the New York State Department of Corrections went on strike. Plaintiff- appellants Marianne Engblom and Charles Palmer were corrections officers at Mid-Orange Correctional Facility in Warwick, New York. Engblom and Palmer lived in the Upper Staff Building—a residence for staff located about a quarter mile from the prison.

The Congressmen sought a declaratory judgment that the President's use of American forces against Yugoslavia was unlawful under both the War Powers Clause of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution ("the WPR"). Appellants claim that the President did submit a report sufficient to trigger the WPR on March 26, or in any event was required to submit a report by that date, but nonetheless failed to end U.S. involvement in the hostilities after 60 days.

78 The court declined to define those circumstances, instead stating that "The ambit of an exceptional discretion to deport to torture, if any, must await future cases." On June 13–14, 2006, the Supreme Court heard three different appeals from Adil Charkaoui, Hassan Almrei and Mohamed Harkat regarding the constitutionality of the security certificate process. Most of the appellants have argued that the refusal to disclose the evidentiary basis of the certificate violates Section 7 of the Charter.

Henry of Bolingbroke, flanked by the lords spiritual and temporal, claims the throne in 1399. From a contemporary manuscript, British Library, Harleian Collection Henry experienced a more inconsistent relationship with King Richard II than his father had. First cousins and childhood playmates, they were admitted together to the Order of the Garter in 1377, but Henry participated in the Lords Appellants' rebellion against the king in 1387.B. Bevan, Henry IV, New York, 1994, pp. 6, 13.

"Therefore appellants failed to make a successful 'same decision anyway' defense"Ayers, 1315. However, the crucial question for Givhan was not that, it was whether her discussions with Leach enjoyed First Amendment protection. And on that score, Gewin began, "[n]ot all expression by a government employee is constitutionally protected." Pickering had held that the employee's constitutional interest had to be balanced against the government's interest in running the school system in an efficient and orderly manner.

Fourteen lower echelon officials of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) were charged with violating the Smith Act by being members of the CPUSA in California. The Smith Act made it unlawful to advocate or organize the destruction or overthrow of any government in the United States by force. The appellants claimed that the Communist Party was engaged in passive political activities and that any violation of the Smith Act must involve active attempts to overthrow the government.

With a strong recommendation from Frankfurter, Lilienthal entered the practice of law in Chicago in 1923 with Donald Richberg.Neuse, pp. 24-25. Prominent in labor law, Richberg gave Lilienthal a major role in writing his firm's brief for the appellants in Michaelson v. United States, 266 U.S. 42 (1924), a landmark case in which the Supreme Court upheld the right of striking railroad workers to jury trials in cases in which they were charged with criminal contempt.

Clubb v Edwards; Preston v Avery is a decision of the High Court of Australia.. . It was a combined hearing of two appeals, raised from the Magistrates Court of Victoria and Tasmania respectively. The appellants, Kathleen Clubb and John Preston; had sought to challenge two laws restricting their conduct near abortion providers, on the ground that the relevant laws were unconstitutional for breach of Australia's freedom of political communication doctrine. Both appeals were unanimously dismissed by the court.

On June 23, 2016, the plaintiff-appellants petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a full-court re-hearing. On August 15, 2016, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for a full-court en banc rehearing. On January 12, 2017 the plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. On June 26, 2017 the Supreme Court denied the writ, with Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, dissenting: > We should have granted certiorari in this case.

The Court is a superior court of record. It consists of a Chief Judge, severals Judges, and Commissioners. The New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal and the New South Wales Court of Appeal, both divisions of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, may hear appeals from the Court, depending on the nature of case. Appellants on constitutional issues may seek special leave for the matter to be heard before the High Court of Australia in certain circumstances.

Necessity as a defense to criminal acts conducted to meet political ends was rejected in the case of United States v. Schoon. In that case, 30 people, including appellants, gained admittance to the IRS office in Tucson, where they chanted "keep America's tax dollars out of El Salvador," splashed simulated blood on the counters, walls, and carpeting, and generally obstructed the office's operation. The court ruled that the elements of necessity did not exist in this case.

Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court of Canada, and the hearing was set for 5 June 2012. At the hearing, the Justices focused on the pensioners’ concern about the lack of notice they received of the insolvency arrangements, while the appellants submitted that creditors would prefer bankruptcy to waiting behind pensioners in a CCAA restructuring. Judgment was reserved. On 28 January 2013, the Court announced that it would be released on 1 February 2013.

Attorneys at this stage can argue, for instance, that prosecutors improperly concealed evidence favorable to the defendant. Before 1995, appellants were not guaranteed an attorney for final appeals. In 1995, Texas revamped its system with a new law that collapsed the layers of appeal and set strict filing deadlines seeking to ensure that defendants received one full, fair set of appeals. The state agreed to pay for court-appointed attorneys to handle the final appeals for Death Row inmates.

Frankfurter, joined by Justice John Marshall Harlan II, dissented vigorously and at length, arguing that the Court had cast aside history and judicial restraint, and violated the separation of powers between legislatures and Courts. He wrote: > Appellants invoke the right to vote and to have their votes counted. But > they are permitted to vote and their votes are counted. They go to the > polls, they cast their ballots, they send their representatives to the state > councils.

Byrd and with $100 which he left there. Perhaps neither judge nor jury believed he won the money gambling. : There is no substance to the claimed errors with reference to the conspiracy or the instruction as to 'aiding and abetting.' There was no merger of the substantive offences, indeed, they were separate and distinct, while the general agreement among the appellants was clearly deducible from the evidence and could be deemed to be continuous and persisting.

Central Railroad & Banking Co. of Ga. v. Pettus, 113 U.S. 116 (1885), was an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Middle district of Alabama in favor of the appellees, Pettus & Dawson and Watts & Sons, adjudging them entitled to the sum of, 161.21, and interest thereon at eight percent per annum from March 7, 1881, with lien, to secure its payment, upon the roadbed, depots, side tracks, turnouts, trestles, and bridges owned and used by the appellants, corporations of the State of Georgia, in operating the railroad formerly belonging to the Montgomery and West Point Railroad Company, an Alabama corporation, and which extends from Montgomery to West Point with a branch from Opelika to Columbus. This property was directed to be exposed to sale unless within a given time the said amount was paid. This suit is the outgrowth of certain litigation in the courts of Alabama relating to the before-mentioned and other railroad property in which the appellants are interested..

The appellants' argument then, more > precisely stated, is that in criminalizing so many activities surrounding > the act itself, Parliament has made prostitution de facto illegal if not de > jure illegal., per Dickson CJ at page 44 The legal situation has also been challenged in the rulings of two courts in Ontario in Bedford v. Canada—the respondents/appellants are sex worker activists Terri-Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch, and Valerie Scott—which described the laws as 'ancient' and emphasised that the purpose of the laws was not to eradicate prostitution but to mitigate harms emanating from it: "We are satisfied that the challenged provisions are not aimed at eradicating prostitution, but only some of the consequences associated with it, such as disruption of neighbourhoods and the exploitation of vulnerable women by pimps." OCA at 169 In a dissenting opinion (2:3) regarding the potential harm of the laws, the appellate justices wrote: > The 1985 addition of the communicating provision to the existing bawdy-house > and living on the avails provisions created an almost perfect storm of > danger for prostitutes.

The Appellants also argued, relying on the persuasive precedent of the Australian High Court case of Goodwin v Phillips (1908), that implied repeal could work pro tanto, that is to say a later Act could carve out an exception to the operation of an earlier without prejudice to its operation in areas unaffected by the later statute. They also argued on the basis of authority from the Court of Appeal and Divisional Court in the 1930s that a consolidation statute could work an implied repeal in the same way as any other Act. Dealing with the Factortame litigation the appellants argued that as implied repeal applied in those cases but had not been argued by the Attorney-General they were caught by the Rule in Warner's Case (1661) and were not binding authority. The second argument concerned the nature of the authorisation contained in the European Communities Act 1972, what is known as a Henry VIII clause delegating to the Executive a power to amend primary and secondary legislation to achieve a certain aim.

A custodial sentence, the court found, was the only appropriate one. It emerged from a consideration of previous cases, however, that appreciably lower sentences were imposed than would have been if the relevant accused or appellants had been convicted of the underlying prohibited acts. In casu, a sentence of seven years' imprisonment on the first count, and four years on the second, was appropriate. Since the two offences had been closely linked in time and circumstance, the sentences should run concurrently.

The next question was whether or not these statements were protected by qualified privilege. To establish privilege, the appellants had to show that they had a reciprocal right and duty to make and receive the report, and that the defamatory statements were relevant or germane and reasonably appropriate to the occasion.Para 10. One of the recognised occasions that enjoys qualified privilege is where such statements are published in the discharge of a duty or in the exercise of a right.

The Birmingham Six's convictions were quashed in 1991. A series of other less high-profile convictions based on the squad's investigations were quashed on appeal, including the cases of George Glen Lewis, Keith Twitchell, and on 17 October 2014, Martin Foran who had been wrongly convicted in 1978 for four counts of robbery. As of January 2017 a total of 60 appellants have had their convictions quashed. A total of over 100 cases either collapsed or were quashed on appeal.

He was born of a Buckinghamshire family and was received into the English College at Reims, 1 April 1588. On 17 September 1590, he was sent to the new College at Valladolid; here he finished his studies, was ordained priest and returned to England in 1593. He worked on his mission chiefly in London. He was one of the appellants against the archpriest George Blackwell, and his name is affixed to the appeal of 17 November 1600, dated from Wisbech Castle.

The students, including Bell, refused. He and the other students were arrested and convicted in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City for criminal trespassing, and fined $10. The NAACP hired a team of lawyers, including Thurgood Marshall and Juanita Jackson Mitchell, to represent the students and appeal the conviction to the Maryland Court of Appeals. The appellants argued that the use of the state's trespassing laws to support segregation of public accommodations violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Wilton Diptych, showing Richard venerating the Virgin and Child, accompanied by his patron saints: Edmund the Martyr, Edward the Confessor, and John the Baptist. The angels in the picture wear the White Hart badge. National Gallery, London. In the last years of Richard's reign, and particularly in the months after the suppression of the appellants in 1397, the king enjoyed a virtual monopoly on power in the country, a relatively uncommon situation in medieval England.Saul (1997), pp. 331–2.

The Court affirmed that section 241(b) of the Criminal Code fell within the federal government's section 91(27) criminal law power. Echoing their decision in Canada (AG) v PHS Community Services Society,2011 SCC 44 at para 51. the Court dismissed the appellants' argument that section 241(b) lay within the core of the provincial section 92 powers. Interjurisdictional immunity could not prevent the federal government from enacting the legislation, since the proposed core of the provincial health powers was overly vague.

The decision was well received by many, but characterized as judicial activism by others. The BCCLA, appellants at the Supreme Court, were "overjoyed" by the ruling, holding that "physician-assisted dying will now be recognized for what it is—a medical service". The day of the decision, Andrew Coyne wrote in his National Post column that the Court was being eerily complacent about ramifications of its decision. He also argued that the decision signaled the death of judicial restraint in Canada.

John J. Patrick and Richard M. Pious, The Oxford Guide to the United States Government (Oxford University Press, 2001), 722–723 The Yates decision outraged some conservative members of Congress, who introduced legislation to limit judicial review of certain sentences related to sedition and treason, which did not pass.Micheal Belknap, "Communism and Cold War", in Patrick and Pious, Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court, 199 The appellants' convictions were reversed and the case was remanded to District Court for a retrial.

Christchurch City Council's appeal was because it considered to much water would be taken from the Waimakariri River which may affect Christchurch's water supply. Fish and Game's appeal was motivated by concern over the Waimakariri River take and 'inadequate' fish screening conditions. Ngāi Tahus appeal concerned the Waimakariri River take and the legality of the change in scope of the consents granted from what had been applied for. Other appellants were a member of the Deans family and some extractors of river gravel.

The third issue was whether the claim ought to fail because any breach by Daiwa was not causative of the loss. The appellants relied upon Berg Sons & Co v Adams [1992] BCC 661. In that case Hobhouse J had held that the directing mind of the company, to whom an auditor's report was directed, already knew the true facts. Therefore, his knowledge was attributed to the company, which meant that the company did not rely on the auditor's report, and the claim failed.

The Privy Council noted that dishonesty is normally a bar to the application of the principle. It was alleged by Mr Byington that Mr Costa was dishonest in his actions, and that the court should not allow an agent to defraud the company. The appellants argued "it would be a 'remarkable extension' to the Duomatic principle to apply it to apparent authority so as to allow an agent to commit a fraud against the company and its members."Ciban v Citco, para 43.

The appellants argued that Mr Byington was not in fact the shareholder (although he was the ultimate beneficial owner). Legal title to the shares was vested in a US attorney who held the shares on behalf of Mr Byington. And only the legal holder has title to vote the shares. However, Lord Burrows referred to various cases where it was accepted that, in appropriate cases, the approval of the beneficial owner could be treated as the approval of the shareholders.

Its purpose is not to obtain a reconsideration of the application of substantive law, such as points relating to patentability.EPO web site, Frequently asked questions about the revised European Patent Convention (EPC 2000) , item 14. Consulted on October 31, 2007. The petition is a restricted form of judicial review, limited to examining serious errors of procedure which might have been committed by the Legal or Technical Boards of Appeal, prejudicing the right to a fair hearing of one or more appellants.

Jean Soanen (1647–1740) Jean Soanen (1647–1740) was a French Oratorian and bishop of Senez. He was a convinced Jansenist. In opposition to the papal bull Unigenitus, he with Charles-Joachim Colbert, bishop of Montpellier, Pierre de la Broue who was bishop of Mirepoix, and Pierre de Langle who was bishop of Boulogne, appealed against it in 1717 to a general council.Catholic Encyclopedia This group and their followers were known as Appellants; the council was though entirely hypothetical as an idea.

In S v Tandwa (2007), the seven appellants were convicted of a bank robbery and appealed this. The allegation was that it was an "inside job," as Tandwa was an employee of the bank. It looked like Tandwa was a victim, but he was actually working with the bank robbers. The first appellant also contended that his right to a fair trial had been violated in that his counsel had been incompetent, had given him bad advice, and had conducted himself obstructively.

Arguments were made in the House of Lords between the 7 and 9 July 2009. Senior Counsel were Tim Owen QC and Shaun Smith QC for the two sets of appellants and David Perry QC for the Crown in response.[2009] UKSC 14 [Representation] An extended panel of 7 Justices heard the case, which is common practice when a case raises important human rights issues. On 9 December 2009, the Court ruled unanimously in favour of the crown and dismissed the appeals.

According to the Web site Tax Analysts, Murphy v. IRS "is not only one of the most significant tax decisions in decades, but it is also one of the most important constitutional cases in decades as well". The now-voided ruling had shaken up the tax community as it is rare for a federal court to hold that a tax law is unconstitutional. The case was argued for the appellants by Colapinto, who was assisted on the briefs by S. Kohn.

Marrita Murphy and Daniel J. Leveille, Appellants v. Internal Revenue Service and United States of America, Appellees (commonly known as Murphy v. IRS), is a controversial tax case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit originally held that the taxation of emotional distress awards by the federal government is unconstitutional. That decision was vacated, or rendered void,To vacate, in the context of a court's action on a judgment, means "to render void; to set aside".

Private sector actors can also threaten the right to privacy—particularly technology companies, such as Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Yahoo that use and collect personal data. In some American jurisdictions, the use of a person's name as a keyword under Google's AdWords for advertising or trade purposes without the person's consent has raised certain personal privacy concerns."Robert L. Habush and Daniel A. Rottier, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William M. Cannon, Patrick O. Dunphy and Cannon & Dunphy, S.C., Defendants-Respondents " (PDF).

The appellants had argued that the SCC's own ruling in Century Services Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) should be expanded to apply federal bankruptcy priorities to CCAA proceedings. The Court noted, however, that Century Services had observed that there are points at which the two schemes converge. Because the CCAA is silent about what happens if reorganization fails, the BIA scheme of liquidation and distribution necessarily supplies the backdrop for what will happen if a CCAA reorganization is ultimately unsuccessful.

Conte ran for Colorado State Legislature in 1994, but was almost denied ballot access. Conte planned to run as an Independent and officially changed her affiliation on August 2, 1993. The deadline to turn in her petition for candidacy was August 2, 1994. She filed her petition—signed by three appellants—on July 18, 1994 and was told two separate times that her petition was sufficient and that any defects in the petition would be remedied before the filing deadline.

The five appellants were all students who had come to the UK to study. None of them had the right of abode in the United Kingdom. It established these principles: Ordinary residence is established if there is a regular habitual mode of life in a particular place "for the time being", "whether of short or long duration", the continuity of which has persisted apart from temporary or occasional absences. The residence must be voluntary and adopted for "a settled purpose".

In Bekker, a mortgage bond had been called up and the property sold in execution and transferred to the appellants. The erstwhile owner, however, refused to vacate. This was also, therefore, a case of holding over, although here the occupier, who had originally held qua owner, had never enjoyed the consent of the present owner. In an application for eviction in the High Court, the Judge raised mero motu the question of non-compliance with the Act, and subsequently dismissed the application.

The magistrate in magistrates' court held, on an application of the above principles to the facts of the case, that the wounding of the deceased could not be regarded as a legal cause of the deceased's death for the purposes of a charge of murder. Accordingly, the convictions of murder and the death sentences had to be set aside and replaced with convictions of attempted murder. The appellants were each sentenced to ten years' imprisonment in respect of this count.

The appellants immediately appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, claiming that the two documents had been on the shelves for a considerable period of time. The government now advanced the argument that "technical data" was not protected by the First Amendment. The motions for an expedited review were denied because the magazine's lawyers had waived that right—something Morland and The Progressive editors discovered only from the court. The preliminary injunction therefore remained in effect for six months.

In Wilde v Hoffert, on 19 June 1993, the appellants were arrested on charges of dealing in or possessing cocaine, and attempted murder. After their first formal appearance in the magistrate's court, they were granted bail. There followed a series of remands, initially to amend the conditions of bail and thereafter at the request of the prosecution, "for further investigation." On 5 October 1993, the matter was set down for trial in the week of 24 to 28 May 1994.

Since the general rule is that "a litigant may only assert his own constitutional rights or immunities," (United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 22) we hold that appellants have no standing to raise this contention. The Court also held that the law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Warren again: :...the Court has [previously] held that the Fourteenth Amendment permits the States a wide scope of discretion in enacting laws which affect some groups of citizens differently than others.

They obtained patents for the express > purpose of furthering their monopoly. They utilized various types of > restrictions in connection with leasing those patents so as to retain their > dominance in that industry. The history of this country has perhaps never > witnessed a more completely successful economic tyranny over any field of > industry than that accomplished by these appellants. They planned their > monopolistic program on the basis of getting and keeping and using patents > which they dedicated to the destruction of free competition in the glass > container industry.

As a reward, he was created Marquess of Somerset and Marquess of Dorset on 29 September, and sometime later that year he was made a Knight of the Garter and appointed Lieutenant of Aquitaine. In addition, two days before his elevation as a Marquess he married the king's niece, Margaret Holland, sister of Thomas Holland, 1st Duke of Surrey, another of the counter- appellants. John remained in the king's favour even after his older half- brother Henry Bolingbroke (later Henry IV) was banished from England in 1398.

The Democrats lost their lawsuit in the Cole County Circuit Court due to a lack of standing and the vagueness of the state law which states it cannot be done, but does not provide a process to fill the position. That lawsuit was on appeal in the Missouri Supreme Court, Appeal No. SC97284,Appellants' Brief. with oral argument held on November 7, 2018. On April 16, 2019, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the appointment of Kehoe to Lieutenant Governor by a vote of 5–2.

The first issue before the court was, therefore, whether it could review its own decision of a previous case. The Court held that it does have the jurisdiction to review its own decision. Such jurisdiction only arises in "exceptional and rare cases" \- there should be a reasonable issue at hand and there should be clear breaches of natural justice for a court to decide whether or not it should review a previously decided judgement. With respect to bias, the appellants alleged objective rather than actual bias.

Thus, the Court decided that Mr and Mrs O'Donnell could not raise a motion before the court as they did not have the capacity to do so and so dismissed their application for a stay. The remaining appellants, Bruce and Blake O'Donnell faced the same result. The Court found no reasons as to why they should be given a stay. They questioned McGovern J's previous connection with Bank of Ireland and alleged it could be the sole reason for his partiality towards the respondents (Bank of Ireland).

Bed bugs are an increasing cause for litigation.Initi, John "Sleeping with the Enemy" Maclean's, 14 January 2008, Vol. 121, Issue 1, p54–56 Courts have, in some cases, exacted large punitive damage judgments on some hotels.Archive BURL MATHIAS and DESIREE MATHIAS, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants Many of New York City's Upper East Side homeowners have been afflicted, but they tend to remain publicly silent in order not to ruin their property values and be seen as suffering a blight typically associated with the lower classes.

District Court (California : Northern District) Land Case 395 ND In 1857, Cipriano Thurn and Horace Carpentier, Domingo Peralta's attorneys claimed one-half of the rancho for Peralta, disputing the alleged sale in 1834 of one half of the rancho to Martínez.Cipriano Thurn et al., Claiming Part Of The Rancho Canada Del Corte Madera, Appellants, vs. The United States, Dec 1857, Reports of land cases determined in the United States District Court (California : Northern District) The grant was patented to José Domingo Peralta in 1882.

In 1982, Sarkissian was convicted in taking part in a plot to bomb the Philadelphia Turkish Consulate.Justia: United States of America, Plaintiff/appellee, v. Karnig Sarkissian, Steven Dadaian, Vicken Hovsepian, defendants/appellants A resident of Anaheim, California at the time, his accomplices according to the courts were Viken Vasken Yacoubian of Glendale; Vicken Archavir Sarkissian Hovsepian, of Santa Monica; Dikran Sarkis Berberian, of Glendale and Steven John Dadaian, of Canoga Park, California and Լisbon 5. They were accused of being members of Justice Commandos Armenian Genocide (JCAG).

The Auckland Regional Council had publicly notified its proposed regional policy statement in early 1994 which would have restricted urban development with a line of metropolitan urban limits. The appellants, the North Shore City Council and the owners of land in the area around Long Bay and Okura River sought to modify the metropolitan urban limits so that an area of some 700 hectares in the area would be zoned within the urban limit North Shore City Council v Auckland Regional Council [1997] NZRMA 59 at 63.

Goodman (1971), pp. 129–30. Richard now had no choice but to comply with the appellants' demands; Brembre and Tresilian were condemned and executed, while de Vere and de la Polewho had by now also left the countrywere sentenced to death in absentia at the Merciless Parliament in February 1388.Neville, as a man of the clergy, was deprived of his temporalities, also in absentia; Saul (1997), pp. 192–3. The proceedings went further, and a number of Richard's chamber knights were also executed, among these Burley.

He collaborated with Orsi in his "De Romani pontificis in synodos oecumenicas et earum canones potestate". Soon pope Benedict XIV appointed him prefect of the Casanatensian Library, master of theology and consultor of the Congregation of the Index. Owing to his office he had to take part in the controversy between the Appellants (Jansenists) and the Jesuits, and displayed an impartiality which greatly increased the difficulties of his anxious and laborious position. He engaged in lively theological controversies with Gian Domenico Mansi and Cadonici.

In this case, Administrative Discretion resulted in individualized parameters of what was deemed necessary to convey a termination of aid, instead of a federal standard. The Holding of Chief Justice Warren Burger and the court sided with the appellants' view: a full hearing of evidence is required before a recipient can be denied/deprived of certain types of government benefits. In other words, a recipient must receive some sort of notice should their aid be changed/terminated; whether in writing or orally. Industrial Union Department v.

On the day of the agreement, a group consisting of three students, three alumni, and a North Providence resident filed a motion to stay. The motion was dismissed on the basis of being untimely and that they lacked standing. The group filed a notice of appeal over the ruling barring their intervention. Of the seven appellants, four had not signed the notice of appeal, and mail sent by the First Circuit Court of Appeals to a fifth appellant's address was returned as undeliverable with no forwarding address.

The English pursued the remnants of the enemy to Sluis, and then pillaged the surrounding countryside before bringing the fleet back to England on 14 April. They then made another foray to Brest in Brittany before returning to England in June 1387. Walter Devereux was probably present at the Battle of Radcot Bridge on 19 December 1387 when Thomas of Woodstock led the Appellants to victory. He also attended the “Merciless Parliament” on 3 February 1388 where he received a writ of supersedeas omnino noted above.

There was nothing in the legislative history of either the 1920 Act or the 1975 Amendments to indicate otherwise; indeed, if a state severance tax were found to interfere with federal leases, all such taxes (of any amount) would have to be enjoined—an outcome Congress clearly did not intend.Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. at 632–633. Appellants had also argued that the Montana tax "frustrated" the broad goals of national energy policy, but the Court refused to agree on two grounds.

In 1943, he joined the Communist Party due to his anti-fascism and the fact that the USSR was by that time a member of the Allied Forces in World War II. He also stated that the Party provided education. "For the first time, I read history... The Party was a vehicle of great intellectual growth for me, a very rich part of my life." In the 1940s, Braverman joined Max Angelson, Harry Angelson, and Ida Sperling as plaintiffs-appellants against the New York Rapid Transit Corporation.

The appellants, M/S R.M.D.C., were conducting their business in Mysore, since August, 1948, under the head of "prize competitions". They were governed by the Mysore Lotteries and Prize Competitions Control and Tax Act, 1951. Following an appeal from various states to the Union under article 252 of the Indian Constitution, a Central Legislation was passed called the Prize Competitions Act, 1955. The State of Mysore, among other states, adopted this act, thereby assenting to the Union's exclusive jurisdiction over control of prize competitions.

Porus A. Mehta, J. R. Gagrat and G. Gopalakrishnan, who were the counsel for the appellants, made 5 major arguments. Their first contention was that the Mysore Legislature, by adopting the Central legislation, had surrendered their competence to legislate on any matter regarding prize competitions. They stated that all powers, including that of taxation, had been surrendered in favour of the Parliament. The competency to enact laws with regard to Entry 34 and 62 of List II of the Seventh Schedule were contended to have been surrendered.

Bula Ltd and others (the appellants in the appeal) appealed to the Supreme Court against the judgement and order of the High Court which found in favour of the Respondents. According to Lynch J. in the High Court "This case arises out of circumstances which commenced more than a quarter of a century ago. It has its origin in business dealings undertaken in the hopes of arriving at a very large crock of gold, which in the end of the day turned into a bottomless pit of debt and misery for those who most avidly sought the crock of gold. It is from that bottomless pit that the remaining plaintiffs [the appellants in the appeal] in this action hope by this litigation to escape" The case before the High Court involved an allegation by Bula Limited (in receivership) and others (the plaintiffs in the original hearing) that the first fourteen defendants (the respondents in the appeal) failed to cooperate with them in extracting the zinc and lead core body from their neighbouring mine, contrary to a provision in the lease from the Minister for Energy.

On September 15, 1870, that company executed to Morris and Lowery, trustees, a mortgage upon its property and franchises (including the property transferred to it by the Montgomery and West Point Railroad Company), to secure the payment of, 200,000 of bonds, thereafter to be issued, and of which a large amount was issued, and their payment was also guaranteed by the appellants. Subsequently, on March 31, 1874, those trustees commenced a suit in the Chancery Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, against the Western Railroad Company, the present appellants, the surviving trustees in the mortgages executed by the Montgomery and West Point Railroad Company, and others. Its object was to procure a sale of the property of the former company, including that purchased from the latter company. A final decree was passed December 18, 1874, ordering a sale, subject, however, to a lien, in respect of the property formerly owned by the last-named company, in favor of the holders of its mortgage bonds, according to their respective priorities, and, in respect of the property of the Western Railroad Company, to a lien in favor of the holders of bonds secured by its mortgage of September 15, 1868.

Furthermore, the possibility of > proselytisation and corruption of young men is a real danger even in the > case of these appellants and the taking of video recordings of such > activities suggest that secrecy may not be as strict as the appellants > claimed to your Lordships. If the only purpose of the activity is the sexual > gratification of one or both of the participants what then is the need of a > video recording? My Lords I have no doubt that it would not be in the public > interest that deliberate infliction of [ABH] during the course of homosexual > sado-masochistic activities should be held to be lawful...If it is to be > decided that such activities as the nailing by A of B's foreskin or scrotum > to a board or the insertion of hot wax into C's urethra followed by the > burning of his penis with a candle or the incising of D's scrotum with a > scalpel to the effusion of blood are injurious neither to B, C and D nor to > the public interest then it is for Parliament with its accumulated wisdom > and sources of information to declare them to be lawful.

His opinions were clearly written and easy to read. An example is found in The London, Paris, and American Bank, Limited v, Abrams, 6 Arizona 87 (1898), where Davis wrote "An examination of the mutilated, interlined, and disfigured transcript shows the evidence in support of the material allegations of the appellants' complaints to be meager, unsatisfactory, and to a considerable extent incompetent." Another example came in Bennett v. Nichols, 9 Arizona 138 (1905), a case involving the legislatures ability to grant a 20-year tax exemption to a railroad.

The court, composed of Nolan LJ, Mann LJ and Sir Stephen Brown, reversed Kennedy's decision.Kutner (1995) p.79 Despite a lack of comment by the appellants on the claim under nuisance, the court addressed this ground, relying on the "obscure decision" found in Ballard v Tomlinson,[1885] 29 ChD 115 concluding that "where the nuisance is an interference with a natural right incident to ownership then the liability is a strict one". As such, Kennedy should have applied Ballard, and it was unnecessary to consider Rylands because the claim under nuisance was valid.

After much pressure from the king of France and the bishops Noailles made public this ambiguous acceptance of the Bull in his pastoral instruction of November 18, 1720. But this did not satisfy Clement XI, who required an unconditional acceptance. After the death of Clement XI, March 19, 1721, the appellants continued in their obstinacy during the pontificates of Innocent XIII (1721–1724) and Benedict XIII (1724–1730). Noailles, the soul of the opposition, finally made a sincere and unconditional submission on October 11, 1728, and died soon after (May 2, 1729).

Exton's primary policy throughout his two periods as Mayor was probably based on a desire to maintain the city's neutrality between the feuding parties. On the other hand, he appears to have personally profited from the Appellants' period of rule, and it seems that there was some dissatisfaction with him in London, even if he was subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing by parliament. His later years are as obscure as his youth; known to have married at least twice, he seems to have had no children and died in 1402 at an unknown age.

In addition, Laskin asserted that the position taken by the appellants has no historical basis and even if it did, "history cannot avail against the clear words of ss. 1 and 2 of the Canadian Bill of Rights". Those sections, Laskin contended, makes it abundantly clear that the Canadian Bill of Rights does not contain purely declaratory provisions. Rather, Laskin held the Bill does not permit a violation of its provisions regardless of whether the impugned statute was enacted prior to or after the enactment of the Bill of Rights.

Bank of Ireland v O'Donnell & ors [2015 IESC 90] is an Irish Supreme Court case that centred around whether the appellants had any right or capacity to bring a motion before the court. They wanted to seek an order of a stay on Mr Justice McGovern's order dated 24 July 2014. In their appeal, they referred to the principle of objective bias and Mr Justice McGovern's refusal to recuse himself. The Supreme Court rejected the application for a stay and held that the law regarding objective bias was clearly stated in the lower court.

In opinion written by Justice Powell, the court held: # the case was not moot because it was one of a category of cases that is "capable of repetition, yet evading review;" # the statute was unconstitutional and the argument that a corporation's speech regarding issues not relevant to the business loses its First Amendment protection is invalid. In its ruling, the Court first considered whether the case was moot.Bellotti, 435 U.S. at 774. The constitutional amendment that the appellants had opposed had been defeated by the time the case came to the Court's attention.

The Court used the scrutiny described in Weinstein v. Bradford in its determination that the case was not, in fact, moot.."First Amendment-- Corporate Free Speech", Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 69 (1978): 545, accessed April 20, 2014. The Court's rationale was twofold: first, the interval between the amendment's proposal and its referendum was too short for complete judicial review to have occurred; and second, the Court found that there was a reasonable expectation that the appellants would be adversely affected by the statute again.Bellotti, 435 U.S. at 774-775.

To do so would remove the omission from the scope of judicial scrutiny under the Charter. The appellants have challenged the law on the ground that it violates the Constitution of Canada, and the courts must hear and consider the challenge. The court then looked at the application of the Charter to private activities. :Although the [Act] targets private activities and as a result has an 'effect' on those activities it does not follow that this indirect effect should remove the [Act] from the purview of the Charter.

In Blom and Another v Brown and Others, [2011] ZASCA 54, [2011] 3 All SA 223, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) of South Africa dismissed an appeal by Nadine Blom (born Brown) and her sister Elmari Brown, the children of Alfred Samuel Brown (the deceased), against a judgment of the North Gauteng High Court, where Ismail AJ had held that the first respondent, Cecilia Brown, whom the deceased had married after his divorce from the mother of the appellants, was entitled to receive the benefits reserved to her by the will of the deceased.

When the second, handwritten will was lodged with the Master, the first respondent was informed that, in terms of section 4A of the Wills Act,Act 7 of 1953. she was disqualified from benefiting under the will. Section 4A(1) disqualifies, inter alia, a person who writes out the will of another in his or her own handwriting from receiving any benefit under the will. The first respondent applied, without notice to the appellants, to the Johannesburg High Court for an order that she was entitled to benefit from the will.

Immediately following his father's death, the 5th baronet petitioned the Court of Session to rule that his father had indeed obeyed the Act of Parliament, by submitting his written surrender to the Government. The Court of Session ruled in favour of the baronet, and that he had not been forfeited of his estates. The Forfeited Estates Commissioners however appealed to the House of Lords, who subsequently ruled in favour of the appellants. The baronet died young, in 1720, and was succeeded by his uncle, James Macdonald of Oronsay.

639 Richard fled Westminster for London and barricaded himself in the Tower of London. On 27 December the Appellant's army reached the tower in full battle array and forced Richard to surrender. When the leading Appellants, the Duke of Gloucester (Thomas of Woodstock) and the Earls of Arundel, Warwick, Derby (Henry Bolingbroke, later Henry IV) and Nottingham, met with Richard on an improvised throne, they seized him and threatened to execute him for his dealings with France. Ultimately they decided against it, instead forcing him to call a session of Parliament.

Richard and Mildred Loving, appellants in Loving v. Virginia, the landmark Supreme Court of the United States case which struck down laws making interracial marriage illegal Interracial marriage is a form of marriage involving spouses who belong to different races or racialized ethnicities. In the past, such marriages were outlawed in the United States, Nazi Germany and apartheid-era South Africa as miscegenation. It became legal throughout the United States in 1967, following the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States under Chief Justice Earl Warren in the case Loving v.

He had likewise to intervene in the controversy concerning the beatification of Juan de Palafox y Mendoza. In a published writing on this question, he dealt severely with the Jesuit party who opposed the beatification; but he was not less energetic in dealing with their opponents, the Appellants and Jansenist Church of Utrecht. He was director of the ecclesiastical journal of Rome (1742–85), and established at his residence a reunion of the learned Roman society. Mamachi was a zealous supporter of the power of the Roman Pontiff.

Cesan v The Queen.Cesan v The Queen: Judgement summary at High Court of Australia website. was a decision handed down in the High Court of Australia on 3 September 2008 quashing the convictions of two men for conspiring to import a commercial quantity of narcotics because the trial judge was asleep during parts of the trial.. The Court subsequently delivered reasons for its decision on 6 November 2008. The appellants were convicted in the District Court of New South Wales of conspiring to import a commercial quantity of the drug ecstasy.

Appellants claimed that the ITC had been "...guilty of procedural impropriety", particularly that the ITC had unfairly allowed Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd to increase its programme funding by £100m four months after the deadline for bids had closed, and that the ITC had "...irrationally failed" Virgin's application on programme quality grounds. The High Court dismissed all claims and denied Virgin further leave to appeal. In 1999 Warburg Pincus sold its 18% shareholding to Channel 5’s three other shareholders, Pearson, CLT-ufa and United News & Media, for a reported £180m.

Angelo Ruggiero, Gene Gotti, John Carneglia, et al., Appellants, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, April 26, 1988 In January 1988, the judge declared a mistrial on this second case due to government charges of jury tampering. On July 27, 1988, in a retrial, the judge again declared a mistrial because jurors failed to reach a verdict."2nd Mistrial Declared in Gotti Case After Jury Impasse" New York Times July 28, 1988 On May 23, 1989, in his third trial on the 1983 charges, Carneglia was convicted of running a heroin distribution ring.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the dismissal in a 2–1 decision. The Court of Appeals struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act as unconstitutional. Judges Karen L. Henderson, Thomas B. Griffith and Laurence H. Silberman formed the Court of Appeals panel, with Senior Circuit Judge Silberman writing the court's opinion and Circuit Judge Henderson dissenting. The court's opinion first addressed whether appellants have standing to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in section II (slip opinion, at 5–12).

The following description of the fight and stabbing is from the "Summary of Facts and Proceedings" in the January 29, 2001 California Court of Appeal findings.Appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (PDF, 33 pages), January 29, 2001 Note that the term "appellants" excludes Christopher Velardo, 17, owner of the pickup truck, who remained in the truck throughout the incident and was tried separately. > At approximately 7:00 p.m. McLoren and Farris were in the McLoren backyard > in the immediate vicinity of the fort.

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court. Roberts first looked at the Longs' claim that the bank did not have standing to raise the jurisdictional issue for the first time at the Supreme Court level. In most cases, appellants are prohibited from raising an issue at appeal that they have not raised in a lower court. Roberts stated that the court had an independent duty to look at standing and held that the bank did in fact have standing to bring the matter before the court.

On February 21, 2018, the state appealed this order to the Ninth Circuit, claiming that the District Court "abused its discretion because perfect compliance with the Program Guide is not relief that is necessary to correct a systemic Eighth Amendment violation" and that if "the April 19 Order also mandated perfect compliance with the 24-Hour MHCB transfer timeline, then such a ruling also fails to comport with the Eighth Amendment and PLRA."Defendants- Appellants' Opening Brief, Coleman v. Brown, (2018) (No. 17-16080). The plaintiffs/appellees filed their reply brief on May 25, 2018.

The question approved and certified as in the public interest on appeal was whether the prosecution had to prove (in all similar cases) a lack of consent on the recipient's part. The appellants argued against conviction under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 as they had in all instances consented to the acts they engaged in (volenti non fit injuria), that as with tattooing and customary-site body piercings their consent would be directly analogous to the lawful exceptions laid out by three cornerstone (and other) widely-spaced precedent cases.

Nor was there any question that the state of Montana had the right to levy the tax for the purposes it did.Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. at 622–25. Justice Marshall next identified how the fourth prong of the Complete Auto test should be interpreted: > The relevant inquiry under the fourth prong of the Complete Auto Transit > test is not, as appellants suggest, the amount of the tax or the value of > the benefits allegedly bestowed as measured by the costs the State incurs on > account of the taxpayer's activities.

Like the majority, Blackmun too extensively reviewed the history of the RLA and NLRA but rejected the majority's reading of those histories.Beck, 487 U.S. at 769–780. The Supreme Court had previously held that the RLA was not identical to the NLRA, he wrote, and had cautioned lower courts and appellants that they should draw parallels between the two statutes very carefully. The majority, Blackmun concluded, had not made a careful comparison this time, and therefore its conclusions based on the similarities between the RLA and NLRA should be rejected.

Jackson worked in private legal practice from 1998 to 1999 and again from 2000 to 2003. From 2003 to 2005, she served as an assistant special counsel to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, where she drafted proposed amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines in anticipation of the Supreme Court ruling United States v. Booker. From 2005 to 2007, Jackson represented indigent criminal appellants in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit as an assistant federal public defender. From 2007 to 2010, Jackson was an appellate litigator at the law firm of Morrison & Foerster.

House of Lords (1995) "Opinions of the Lords of Appeal for Judgment in the cause Bolton Metropolitan District Council and others (respondents) versus Secretary of State for the Environment and others (appellants)" 24 May, written by Lord Lloyd of Berwick.Trafford Centre (1997) "From de Trafford to the House of Lords" Trafford Centre Insight, Brochure. Twelve years after the Trafford Centre was first conceptualised by the Peel Group, it opened on 10 September 1998. Construction took 27 months at a cost of £600 million - approximately £1 billion in 2016.

Santa Barbara Independent, May 19, 2010 13 days later an appeal of this decision was filed. Three days past the allowable date for appeal - two appellants, Hilary Kleger, UCSB's associated student's "Community Advisor"UCSB Staff List and Tony Romasanta, owner of Harbor View Inn, separately submitted their appeals at the same time. As a result of the appeals, the city made new requirements, which increased the costs, moved up deposit deadlines, and reduced the capacity of the festival. Forty days following the festival, the local production company, Twiin Productions, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

On 14 August 1779 e married Elizabeth Stafford (who died 23 August 1800 in the child-bed of her 16th child) and then married on 24 September 1801 the widow Hannah Colborne. He purchased in 1786 one part of the manor of Cowley and then the other part in 1789. On 4 April 1803 he opposed a petition against the St Pancras workhouse bill (that the "... Appellants may have such other Relief in the Premises as to this House ...") and protested that the bill was, in his words, "absolutely necessary".

He had been warned on two occasions that his apparatus was illegal. Colin Hunt sold fruit and vegetables in Hackney, he displayed his prices by reference to imperial measures and was convicted at Thames Magistrates' Court in June 2001. Julian Harman, a greengrocer, and John Dove, a fishmonger, sold their goods by reference to imperial measures only at Camelford market in Cornwall, they were both convicted in August 2001 at Bodmin Magistrates' Court. Peter Collins sold fruit and vegetables in Sutton and unlike the other appellants, had not been convicted of an offence.

The Minister had also made Order No. 123/1972 and Order No. 405/1994 pursuant to section 3(1) of the Undesirable Publications Act,. prohibiting publications by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society relating to the Jehovah's Witnesses. The appellants were convicted in a district court for possession of prohibited publications. They appealed and sought to challenge the constitutionality of the Minister's prohibition order and the deregistration of the Jehovah's Witnesses, arguing that their right to freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 15(1) of the Constitution had been infringed.

The B.C. Ministry of Forestry seized four logs in the possession of Paul, a registered Indian, who planned to use the wood to build a deck on his home. Paul asserted that he had an aboriginal right to cut timber for house modification and, therefore, the relevant provision of the Forest Practices Code did not apply to him. Timothy P. Leadem, Q.C., and Kathryn Kickbush, represented the appellants, M. Hugh G. Braker, Q.C., and Robert C. Freedman represented the respondent. Murray Rankin and Mark G. Underhill represented the intervener, the Forest Appeals Commission.

The appellants argued that there was no desire to injure anyone; they had chosen a spot where the train was moving slowly up a rising gradient with banks on either side of the line. Innes CJ held, despite this, that they had intended to kill: > Now the derailment of a train, even upon a slightly rising grade, must be > attended by terrible possibilities of danger to those travelling upon it. > Jolly recognised this, for he said in his evidence that he contemplated risk > of life. But he and his associates were content to cause that risk in the > interests of their larger design.

At The 'Wonderful Parliament' in November that year the King's political opponents—the Lords Appellants— attempted to restrict King Richard's authority, and make him accountable to a council of nobles. During that parliament, the St Albans chronicler, Thomas Walsingham, reports that on one occasion, the King planned on having some of them arrested or even ambushed and killed. Exton, the chronicler says, had discovered the plan and pre-warned the Commons, sending a messenger to Westminster. Knighton goes so far as to say that the plot was put off solely due to Exton refusing to be party to it.

In 1397, King Richard II decided to strike back at the Lords Appellant, a group of noblemen who years earlier had partly usurped royal authority, and had executed several of Richard's favourites. The next year Hankford was among the justices consulted concerning the validity of a legal ruling from 1387 which had declared the Appellants' actions unlawful and treasonable. Hankford expressed his support for the rulings, and said he would have ruled the same way himself. On 6 May 1398 Hankford was appointed to succeed his friend Sir John Wadham as Justice of the Court of Common Pleas.

In 1962, McGill University Professor of Law and Canadian modernist poet F. R. Scott appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada to defend Lady Chatterley's Lover from censorship. Scott represented the appellants, booksellers who had been offering the book for sale. The case arose when the police had seized their copies of the book and deposited them with a judge of the Court of Sessions of the Peace, who issued a notice to the booksellers to show cause why the books should not be confiscated as obscene, contrary to s 150A of the Criminal Code.Criminal Code, SC 1953-54, c 51, s.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Forest Practices Authority to approve the application . During the hearing the appellants sought to have the decision of the Forest Practice Authority quashed because the application form for the Private Timber Reserve was not complete . The Tribunal found this did not invalidate the application The application process was changed by the Private Forests Tasmania, in conjunction with Forests Practices Authority, in 2006, and a two part application form was authorised . This hearing is notable due to its length, and the extensive cross examination of witnesses.

The Steamboat New World, Edward Minturn, William Menzie and William H. Webb, Claimants and Appellants, vs. Frederick G. King, 57 U.S. 469 (1854) A boiler explosion occurred on board the sidewheeler New World just above Benicia, California during a race with the Wilson G. Hunt. The resultant lawsult generated a clear picture what such a contest was like during the gold rush times in California: Later Hunt's owners combined with Charles Minturn, Capt. David Van Pelt, and others to form the California Steam Navigation Company, with the objective of forming a monopoly on river transport on the Sacramento river system.

Attorney General Thurlow, speaking for the appellants, referred to the Scottish case in his opening argument to the Lords on 4 February: > [Attorney-General Thurlow] concluded his speech with a compliment to his > learned coadjutor, and a hope, that as the lords of session in Scotland had > freed that country from a monopoly which took its rise from the chimerical > idea of the actuality of literary property, their lordships, whom he > addressed, would likewise, by a decree of a similar nature, rescue the cause > of literature and authorship from the hands of a few monopolizing > booksellers.

Doyle, It required that the court consider whether, if there were other reasons for the adverse personnel action that did not violate the plaintiff's constitutional rights, they would have been enough to justify it. Gewin was skeptical. "Appellants seem to argue that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the same decision would have been justified, but that is not the same as proving that the same decision would have been made," he wrote. The alleged incidents did not seem from the record to have been much of a factor in the district's decision at the time Givhan was let go.

In 2008 he became a Recorder. Gordon Marsden, the MP for Blackpool South contacted the Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox to raise questions about Altham's handling of the 2018 fracking protest case, asking whether would "undertake an investigation into compliance with the Judicial Code of Conduct in relation to the trial". At an appeal hearing held on 17 October Lord Burnett, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales ruled that an "immediate custodial sentence in the case of these appellants was manifestly excessive". After saying that a community order imposing on them unpaid work would have been appropriate.

Although Chief Justice Burger noted that the Supreme Court had not yet established that appellants must "utilize available state administrative remedies as a prerequisite to obtaining federal relief," he argued that "such a requirement is imperative if the critical overburdening of federal courts at all levels is to be alleviated." Consequently, Chief Justice Burger argued that the Court "should now make clear that the finite resources of this Court are not available unless the litigant has first pursued all adequate and available administrative remedies."Moore, 431 U.S. at 531 (Burger, C.J., dissenting). Justice Potter Stewart and Justice Byron White also filed dissenting opinions.

The fiscal and actuarial benefits of the > program thus accrue to members of both sexes. While the Court acknowledged that only women could undergo the excluded condition, “it does not follow that every legislative classification concerning pregnancy is a sex-based classification.” Pregnancy was an objectively identifiable characteristic rather than a subjective judgment, and the appellants had made no showing that the state's asserted rationale for the policy was a pretext for invidious discrimination. Thus, California's policy was not one which the Court would subject to the heightened scrutiny that it had used to evaluate cases such as Reed v.

The business and incident good will are very valuable. In order to conduct its affairs, long time contracts must be made for supplies, equipment, teachers, and pupils. Appellants, law officers of the state and county, have publicly announced that the Act of November 7, 1922, is valid and have declared their intention to enforce it. By reason of the statute and threat of enforcement appellee's business is being destroyed and its property depreciated .... The Academy's bill states the foregoing facts and then alleges that the challenged act contravenes the corporation's rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

He stated that this responsibility belonged to the child's parents or guardians, and that the ability to make such a choice was a "liberty" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. With respect to the discussion of whether the schools' contracts with parents constituted property protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, McReynolds agreed that since the schools were corporations, they were not technically entitled to such protections. However, he continued, :they have business and property for which they claim protection. These are threatened with destruction through the unwarranted compulsion which appellants are exercising over present and prospective patrons of their schools.

However he also appeared in some high-profile criminal cases, including his successful defence before a jury of National Party MP Ian Sinclair in 1980. In the same year he appeared for the appellants in Port Jackson Stevedoring v Salmond & Spraggon, the last case granted leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the High Court. In 1981 he appeared for former Prime Minister Sir William McMahon in Evans v Crichton-Browne, excluding the rhetoric of electoral advertising from judicial scrutiny under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Gleeson was President of the New South Wales Bar Association 1984–1985.

One of the cases that the Supreme Court relied on in Blumenthal was Poliafico. In Poliafico v. United States, the Sixth Circuit found a conspiracy to sell heroin among several suppliers in bulk and their retail supplier agents (street dealers) who retailed it to addicts in diluted form and in smaller quantities. The Sixth Circuit explained the structure of the hub-and-spoke conspiracy as follows: > All of the appellants were either selling heroin to Poliafico and his > associates, or reselling it for them, or carrying on negotiations for such > sales, or making payments therefor, or delivering heroin for resale, or > reselling it.

William F. Flagg, one of the appellants, was the owner, in February 1875, of real estate in and near the City of Bloomington, Illinois, which may be generally described as follows: #A large manufacturing establishment, known as the Empire Machine Works, and about of land upon which it stood. #A tract of land containing about , known as "the pasture", situated in the northeastern part of the city. #Block No. 1, in Flagg's third addition to the City of Bloomington, containing about , on which stood his residence. This property is designated in the record as the "homestead".

The five appellants engaged in sadomasochistic sexual acts, consenting to the harm which they received; whilst their conviction also covered alike harm against others, they sought as a minimum to have their mutually consented acts to be viewed as lawful. None of the five men complained of any of the acts in which they were involved, which were uncovered by an unrelated police investigation.[1994] 1 AC 212, at 238 The physical severity was not disputed. Each appellant (having had legal advice) pleaded guilty to the offence when the trial judge ruled that consent of the victim was no defence.

Article 8.1 of the > Convention states that everyone has the right to respect for his private and > family life, his home and his correspondence. The attempts to rely on this > article is another example of the appellants' reversal of the onus of proof > of legality, which disregards the effect of sections 20 and 47. I would only > say, in the first, place, that article 8 is not part of our law. Secondly, > there has been no legislation which, being post-Convention and ambiguous, > falls to be construed so as to conform with the Convention rather than to > contradict it.

The Ohio Tax Commissioner assessed ad valorem taxes on accounts receivable derived from shipments originating from Ohio manufacturing plants belonging to Wheeling Steel Corporation and National Distillers Products Corporation on the grounds that such accounts "result from the sale of property from a stock of goods maintained within the state.". The Board of Tax Appeals affirmed both assessments. Both appellants appealed the Tax Board's decision. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the tax in both cases,150 Ohio St. 229, 80 N.E.2d 863 which were then brought before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Although Ladd's most popular and critically acclaimed film, Shane, was filmed earlier. it was also released in 1953, making him a prime box office attraction. Ladd was paid US$200,000, first class travel and accommodations for himself, his wife, their four children and their nurse, and 10 per cent of the gross receipts over US$2,000,000 for his 11 weeks work filming The Red Beret."309 F.2d 51: Alan W. Ladd and Sue Carol Ladd, Appellants, v. Robert A. Riddel, District Director of Internal Revenue, Los Angeles, California," United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit, 22 October 1962.

A majority of the Court of Appeal upheld their conviction, rejecting their argument that s. 13 ought to have prevented their previously given testimony from being revealed to the jury despite that they had voluntarily testified in their own defence on both occasions. Hall J.A. dissented, finding that the testimony on which the Crown had cross-examined the appellants was directly incriminating, and that previous Supreme Court decisions limited the use of such testimony to impeaching the accused's credibility. Henry and Riley appealed to the Supreme Court as of right as a result of the decision being split.

Old Supreme Court Building, where the Court of Appeal and High Court sat until moving to a new building in 2005. In a 1994 case, the High Court equated public order in Article 15(4) of the Constitution with "public peace, welfare and good order" in s 24(1)(a) of the Societies Act, rather than holding that public order is threatened by unlawful physical violence. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Jehovah's Witnesses in Singapore were a small, non-violent group and that there was no evidence their activities were against public order in any manner.Chan Hiang Leng Colin v.

The Court of Appeal found that the plaintiffs (appellants) had locus standi to bring the action as they were members of a Buddhist association, for whose benefit the temple property was held by its trustees. In addition, the Court found that the plaintiffs had not been guilty of inordinate delay in commencing the suit. However, the Court agreed with the trial judge that the Collector had not acted in violation of Article 12(1). In determining this issue, the Court held that the test to be applied is "whether there is a reasonable nexus between the state action taken and the object of the law".

This case was an action in replevin for possession of a polled Angus cattle cow, which are bred most commonly for the production of beef as opposed to dairy products. The suit was originally brought in a justice's court, a state court within the jurisdiction of Michigan, and appealed to the circuit court of Wayne County, Michigan. The substance of the appellate decision, which was rendered by the Michigan Supreme Court after the defendant and appellants set out 25 assignments of error, involves a transaction between Hiram Walker et al., importers and breeders of polled Angus cattle (and grocers and distillers), and Theodore Sherwood, a farmer and banker from Plymouth, Michigan.

Even so, later attempts by the Appellants to get Exton and the Londoners to actively support and commit to their anti-Ricardian faction still failed. According to the St Alban's Chronicle, Exton officially distributed food and drink to the Lords' encamped retainers in an attempt at dissuading them from treating the City as the spoils of victory. This was a particular worry for the rich, whose great houses would be first targeted. Favent reports that the Duke of Gloucester, a leading Appellant, on hearing Exton's pledges of the city's loyalty, remarked, "Now I know in truth that liars tell nothing but lies, nor can anyone prevent them from being told".

Exton seems to have tried to continue Brembre's tradition of loyalty to the crown, but, significantly, "within limits never acknowledged by the headstrong Brembre". His support for Richard was almost certainly more passive than his predecessor's: As J. A. Tuck said, London "was probably divided, with Brembre trying to win it over to the King's side and Exton... trying to keep it out of politics". At the same time, Exton profited financially from the crisis. One of the responsibilities that the King's new officers (imposed on him after the Wonderful Parliament) had was to dispose of the forfeited estates of those condemned by the Appellants.

During this period Brembre was a loyal supporter of the King, who at this time was engaged in a bitter conflict with some of his nobles (known collectively as the Lords Appellant). They managed to manoeuvre the King into surrendering some of his authority, and this, in turn, weakened Brembre, who was eventually executed by the Appellants for his support of the King. By then, Exton had in turn been elected Mayor. Although for a while he and Brembre worked together in running London, when his predecessor fell from influence, Exton effectively deserted him, even to the point of being partially responsible for Brembre's eventual hanging.

A member of appellee Popular Democratic Party (hereafter "appellee") who was elected in the November, 1980, general election to the Puerto Rico House of Representatives from District 31, died in 1981. The Governor of Puerto Rico subsequently called for a "by- election" — open to all qualified voters in District 31 — to fill the vacancy. Appellee then filed suit in the Superior Court of Puerto Rico, alleging that the Puerto Rico statutes under which the Governor purported to act authorized only candidates and electors affiliated with appellee to participate in the by-election. Appellants, qualified electors in District 31 who are not affiliated with appellee, intervened as defendants.

Instead, the court noted that the enumerated misdemeanors in the constitution had been chosen with some care, so that they covered many lesser offenses for which mainly black people were convicted, such as petty larceny, while omitting what the court judged to be more serious offenses such as "second-degree manslaughter, assault on a police officer, mailing pornography, and aiding the escape of a misdemeanant". In the Court's opinion, this established discrimination against Afro-Americans as a major purpose of the constitutional reform (both in words and deeds). Therefore, whether or not there also was a secondary purpose, as outlined by the appellants, would be irrelevant.

This was supported by the minutiae of the proceedings, where delegates repeatedly claim that they did not wish to disenfranchise "whites", but "blacks". The appellants claimed that this openly acknowledged purpose was accompanied by an unspoken purpose of disenfranchising "poor whites". They claimed their true object was for the ruling party, the Southern Democrats, to thwart the Populists and the Republicans, who threatened their political power, by disenfranchising groups of voters who were more inclined to vote for those parties. However, since they needed the "white votes" to bring through these measures directed against a tangible part of the "white electorate", the Convention could not openly explain their true purpose.

Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd and Others v Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council and Others1999 (1) SA 374 (CC). is an important case in South African law, heard in the Constitutional Court on 18 and 20 August 1998, with judgment handed down 14 October. The bench was occupied by Chaskalson P, Langa DP, Ackermann J, Goldstone J, Kriegler J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O'Regan J, Sachs J and Yacoob J. DJB Osborn (with him PJ Van Blerk) appeared for the appellants, RM Wise (with him J. Kentridge) for the first respondent, and CZ Cohen (with him M. Chaskalson) for the second, third, fourth and fifth respondent.

Since 1979, NYC Clock Master, Marvin Schneider and later his assistant, Forest Markowitz, have wound the clock on a weekly basis. On March 31, 2016, Justice Lynn R. Kotler, of New York State Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Appellants and revoked the New York Landmarks Preservation Commission's Certificate of Appropriateness. According to the ruling, the Landmarks Preservation Commission has the authority to require the building owners to maintain the mechanical mechanism, and to issue a violation if the clock is transitioned to electrical workings. The case was heard by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Judicial Department on February 23, 2017.

Following this ruling, SPDC appealed the judgement in 2010 and asked that any payment be suspended until after the appeal process. The Court agreed that payment could be postponed, but required that SPDC's bank, First Bank Plc, become a guarantor of the funds payable to the Ejama-Ebubu community. The Bank agreed to become Shell's guarantor and volunteered to "guarantee to pay to the respondents [the community] the judgment sums only if the aforesaid appeal to the Court of Appeal fails and the appellants [SPDC] become liable in law to pay the judgment sums therein." These judgement sums included the initial N15.4 billion as well as interest.

During the Wonderful Parliament of 1386 he was impeached on charges of embezzlement and negligence, a victim of increasing tensions between Parliament and Richard.J.S. Roskell, The Impeachment of Michael de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk in 1386 in the Context of the Reign of Richard II (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984) He was the first official in English history to be removed from office by the process of impeachment. Even after this disgrace, he remained in royal favour, although soon fell foul of the Lords Appellant. He was one of a number of Richard's associates accused of treason by the Appellants in November 1387.

In 1956 Cincinnati, Ohio passed an ordinance which provided that: Dennis Coates, a student, and four other appellants, participated in a demonstration in Cincinnati, Ohio and were convicted of violating said law by conducting themselves in an ‘annoying manner.’ Coates appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, alleging that the ordinance and his conviction violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Coates argued that the ordinance interfered with the First Amendment protection of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and that the ordinance as written was so vague that it violated the due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment.Coates, 402 U.S. at 612.

A lawsuit was filed in 1985 challenging the revision of PTBA boundaries prior to the third vote, with the appellants from northern Whidbey arguing that their constitutional rights of equal protection and equal suffrage were deprived because of their inability to vote on the measure. The following year, the Washington Supreme Court upheld the PTBA's boundary revision, allowing it to begin collecting sales tax that was authorized by the vote. The PTBA renamed itself "Island Transit" and began operating fare-free service on December 1, 1987, with four bus routes covering Oak Harbor and southern Whidbey Island, vanpool service to the Boeing Everett Factory, and contracted dial-a-ride service.

However, Dr. Frank Taylor (an experienced economist on retainer for the Appellants) discovered that despite the fact that the population of the states involved had Jewish populations between 2-5% of the total population, the list was composed of nearly 80% religiously or ethnically Jewish lawyers. Individuals who had worked for State Farm, including former Divisional Claim Superintendent Ron Middler, testified that the list was indeed used to discriminate against ethnic minorities. State Farm paid out $30 million to Todd Hindin and his clients for discrimination on the basis of religion and national origin. Documents that Hindin uncovered would assist in another case in 2003, Campbell v.

The situation here, the appellants submitted, was exactly the same: once Singularis is identified with Mr Al Sanea's fraud, it is a dishonest company, and was not relying on Daiwa to perform its Quincecare duty. The Court of Appeal dismissed that argument. It has already held that the fraud of its principal was not to be attributed to Singularis. But the court went on to hold that, even if Mr Al Sanea's fraud were to be attributed, the claim would still be rejected because the directors of Singularis who were not acting fraudulently were indeed relying on Daiwa for the performance of its Quincecare duty.

The appellants argued, in reliance upon the decision of Evans-Lombe J's decision in Barings plc v Coopers & Lybrand [2003] PNLR 34, that Daiwa should have an equal and opposite claim in deceit against Singularis. The Court of Appeal rejected that contention. The court accepted that, ordinarily, a third party who was misled by Mr Al Sanea's false statements into entering into a transaction would be able to recover all losses flowing from that transaction. But in this case Daiwa was not an ordinary third party; it was in breach of a pre-existing legal duty to Singularis to refrain from making the payments whilst the circumstances put it on inquiry.

The appellants argued that these claims were all brought by, and for the indirect benefit of, the creditors of Singularis (through the liquidator). The trial judge had held that there was no principle of law which entitled the court to consider what a party intended to do with the money it recovers, and that the solvency or insolvency of Singularis did not affect that principle. The Court of Appeal broadly endorsed that, holding "the identity of those creditors cannot in this situation affect the question of whether the company in liquidation has a claim against Daiwa for breach of its Quincecare duty."Singularis v Daiwa at paragraph 89.

In doing so, Hughes highlighted a key defining difference between certain electronic devices used in evidence gathering; namely that breathalyser and speed guns capture a measurement of an activity at a point of time that cannot be re-captured again at another point in time. The consequence of using unapproved devices where measurements of an activity cannot be recaptured is that the evidence gathered is inadmissible; whereas in the case of a fingerprint reader, the measurement of the suspect’s fingerprints, if contested, can be retaken at any point of time. Lord Hughes concluded that the evidence was therefore admissible, and that the appellants' appeal should be dismissed.

It was also alleged that Michael Lowry had been promised monetary payments from Mr O'Brien if he secured the license. The controversy arising from this decision became the subject of a public inquiry known as the Moriarty Tribunal which was set up to investigate allegations of ministerial corruption and payments made to politicians. It was found by the Tribunal that Michael Lowry through his position as Minister for Public Enterprise at the time had imparted substantive information to Denis O' Brien which was "of significant value and assistance to him in securing the license." High Court Judgment The appellants issued legal proceedings to the High Court in 2001.

Appellants J.F. Wilburn, J. H. Wilburn, and L. G. Wilburn and, The Wilburn Boat Company, and Oklahoma based corporation, obtained a marine insurance policy from the Fireman's Fund Insurance Company for liability coverage for fire among other things, of a vessel called the Wanderer. The Wanderer was moored in an artificial lake called Lake Texoma which bordered the states of Texas and Oklahoma. While moored in Lake Texoma the vessel was completely destroyed by a fire. The Wilburn Boat Company sought recovery for their loss, but Fireman's Fund denied liability based on The Wilburn Boat Company's failure to strictly comply with terms of the contract.

In the Sunderland Magistrates' Court Judge Bruce Morgan stated:9 April 2001, > "So long as this country remains a member of the European Union then the > laws of this country are subject to the doctrine of the primacy of community > law... The passing of the [European Communities Act] 1972 meant that > European legislation became part of our legislation.... This country... has > joined this European club and by so doing has agreed to be bound by the > rules and regulations of the club..." All five appellants, called the "Metric Martyrs" in the press, contested the decisions against them by way of case stated before the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division.

Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs is a seminal case in administrative law decided by the Court of Appeal of Singapore in 1988. The Court decided the appeal in the appellants' favour on a technical ground, but considered obiter dicta the reviewability of government power in preventive detention cases under the Internal Security Act ("ISA"). The case approved the application by the court of an objective test in the review of government discretion under the ISA, stating that all power has legal limits and the rule of law demands that the courts should be able to examine the exercise of discretionary power.

On September 9, 1869, Kuykendall, as the agent and attorney in fact of Frick, assigned the contract of the latter to Ham and Pearce, Ham being the appellee, and Pearce one of the appellants, who had formed a partnership for the purpose of building the courthouse under said contract.. Frick contracted with a county to construct a public building, and gave bond with Kuykendall as surety for the performance of the contract. Frick abandoned the contract. After procuring some modifications in it at request of Ham, Kuykendall assigned the contract to Pearce and Ham as partners with equal interests. Pearce and Ham agreed with Wickwire to construct the building.

The presiding magistrate dismissed the defence argument and granted the prosecution's application for the case to be postponed to 1 April 1996, for trial. On 13 March 1996, the appellants brought an application in the Natal High Court, claiming a stay of the prosecution. The High Court found that, while the Attorney-General was to blame for a substantial period of the delay in the prosecution, there were insufficient grounds for a stay of the prosecution in the absence of trial-related prejudice. The court acknowledged that the Constitution ranks the right to a speedy trial at the forefront of the requirements for a fair criminal trial.

Eldridge v British Columbia (AG), [1997] 3 SCR 624, is a leading decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that expanded the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under section 32 of the Charter. Each of the appellants in this case was born deaf; their preferred means of communication was ASL, a local sign language. They contended that the absence of interpreters impaired their ability to communicate with their doctors and other health care providers, and thus increased the risk of misdiagnosis and ineffective treatment. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that "sign language" interpreters must be provided in the delivery of medical services where doing so is necessary to ensure effective communication.

France); 2nd & 3rd: Gules, three lions passant guardant in pale or (England); all within a bordure compony argent and azureDebtett's Peerage, 1968, p.125 After Richard II was deposed by Henry Bolingbroke in 1399, the new king rescinded the titles that had been given to the counter- appellants, and thus John Beaufort became merely Earl of Somerset again. Nevertheless, he proved loyal to his half-brother's reign, serving in various military commands and on some important diplomatic missions. It was Beaufort who was given the confiscated estates of the Welsh rebel leader Owain Glyndŵr in 1400, although he would not have been able to take possession of these estates unless he had lived until after 1415.

It is important to note that for some public authorities listed under Schedule 1, the act has limited effect. For example, the BBC is subject to the act only for information which is not held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature, to prevent its journalistic activities from possible compromise. The scope of this provision was considered in the recent High Court decision of BBC v Sugar an internal BBC document examining the BBC coverage of the Middle East for potential bias. The appellants in that case argued that the document had been produced for both operational and journalistic reasons, and so should not be covered by the partial exemption provided in the act.

He stated not to have received any assistance from the Russian authorities during that time. Rather the Russian authorities brought criminal allegations against him for surrendering his weapons to the paramilitaries and for disobeying superior orders. The Appellants after being interviewed by the state, his case was found to be "manifestly unfounded" on the grounds of paragraphs 14(a), 14(b) and 14(c) of the Hope Hanlan Procedures. The applicant therefore sought different relief based on different grounds including, # The first respondent when considering the Appellant's application to be "manifestly unfounded", failed to do it in accordance with the guidelines and/or directions of the UNHCR in respect with this type of case.

Another recent historian takes a much darker view: that Exton was "a dangerous and powerful man who needed to be reminded of the consequences of placing private interests above those of the commonalty" and "every bit as ﬁckle and unscrupulous" as Thomas Usk, whom the Appellants had themselves had executed.Either way, Exton's policy was clearly one of non-alignment, if probably an "opportunistic neutrality". The basis of Exton's problem was that the King had attempted—with some success—to build up a Ricardian faction in London politics in the early- to-mid 1380s (for example, Brembre). Whereas, actually, much of the City (including of course many who were close to Brembre) were often sympathetic to the Lords Appellant.

The Supreme Court had no doubt that it can hear and determine an appeal on an issue which the High Court has heard but not determined. However, before reaching its decision, the Court considered whether the appellants had the right to raise the constitutionality of Part III of the Act of 1946 in respect of Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution, whether Part III of the Industrial Relations Act of 1946 or any section thereof infringed Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution by allocating the making, variation and cancellation of registered employment agreements to the Labour Court and the parties to such agreements. Under the Industrial Relations Act 1946 there were two methods including a general sectoral agreement.

This ambiguity made it unfair to the appellants to decide the case against them purely on their own affidavits. In dealing with the equivocality of the contentions in the respondent's affidavits, it was not permissible to base factual findings regarding such contentions on a mere weighing up of the probabilities. The court went on to hold that, inasmuch as there was also nothing in the respondents' affidavits worthy of investigation by viva voce evidence, justice required that the application to refer the matter to viva voce evidence had to be refused. The appeal was thus allowed and the decision of the Witwatersrand Local Division, in Theletsane and Others v Administrator, Transvaal, and Others reversed.

Odnos Ustava Bosne i Hercegovine i Evropske konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda. Sarajevo: ACIPS, 24. of the entire piece agreement, which further implied that all the annexes are in the hierarchical equality. In later decisions the Court confirmed this by using other annexes of the peace agreement as a direct base for the analysis and not only in the context of systematic interpretation of the Annex IV. However, since the Court rejected the presented request of the appellants, it did not go into details concerning the controversial questions of the legality of the process in which the new Constitution (Annex IV) came to power, and replaced the former Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

As to the requirement of common injury, Glidewell LJ, said: In R v Johnson (Anthony) (1997) 1 WLR 367, the Court of Appeal confronted the problem head-on. The defendant had made hundreds of obscene telephone calls to at least thirteen women. The defence argued each telephone call was a single isolated act to an individual. Tucker J, rejected the argument at pp370–371: This was followed in a number of cases such as R v Holliday and Leboutillier (2004) EWCA Crim 1847R v Holliday and Leboutillier [2004] EWCA Crim 1847 in which two animal liberation activists made a large number of telephone calls to employees and shareholders of certain companies whose activities the appellants opposed.

Peacock was born at Cambridge, about 1516, the son of Thomas Peacock, a burgess of Cambridge. He was admitted fellow of St John's College, Cambridge, in 1534, and graduated B.A. 1534–5, M.A. 1537, and B.D. 1554. Peacock's religious views were Roman Catholic; and during the disturbances in St John's College leading to the visitation by Thomas Goodrich, Bishop of Ely, on 5 April 1542, Peacock was one of the "appellants" opposed to John Taylor. On 1 April 1555 he signed the Roman Catholic articles promoted by Dr. Atkynson and others, and on 25 October Thomas Thirlby, Bishop of Ely, whose chaplain he was, presented him to the rectory of Downham, Cambridgeshire.

Robertson JA held the definition of "spouse", as defined by section 2 of the Old Age Security Act, did not discriminate against the appellants, Egan and Nesbit, by virtue of the fact the definition merely created a "distinction" between spouses and non-spouses. Robertson held the issue in the case was not solely concerned over the question of who may receive spousal allowances, but was in actuality "an indirect challenge to the common law and statutory concept of marriage". Our "present understanding of the law of discrimination", Robertson argued, precluded the conclusion "the common law limitations of marriage to persons of the opposite sex" constitutes discrimination under section 15 of the Charter.

The unanimous decision of the Privy Council was handed down by Lord Burrows. After reviewing the facts, the Privy Council considered the central allegation made on behalf of the appellants, namely that Citco and TCCL had ignored "red flags" in relation to the instructions from Mr Costa in relation to the fifth and final power of attorney which was used in the attempt to sell the property. However, the Privy Council accepted the view of the judge at first instance that Mr Byington expected TCCL (and Citco) to follow the instructions of Mr Costa. They endorsed the first instance judgment that Mr Byington "remained in the shadows while Mr Costa communicated his instructions and was the point of contact".

The Jamaica Labour Party opposed granting CCJ full powers on the basis that it was a hanging court. In February 2005, the Privy Council declared that the CCJ-related companion bills passed by the Jamaican Parliament in 2004 were unconstitutional and therefore void. The bills would have established the CCJ as the final court of appeal in Jamaica. The Privy Council sided with the appellants, including the Jamaican Council for Human Rights, the Jamaica Labour Party and others, ruling that to establish the CCJ as the country's final appeal court, without it being entrenched in the constitution would undermine the protection given to the Jamaican people by Chapter Seven of the Jamaican constitution.

Odnos Ustava Bosne i Hercegovine i Evropske konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda. Sarajevo: ACIPS, 24. of the entire peace agreement, which further implied that all of the annexes are in the hierarchical equality. In later decisions the Court confirmed that by using other annexes of the peace agreement as a direct base for the analysis, not only in the context of systematic interpretation of the Annex IV. However, since the Court rejected the presented request of the appellants, it did not go into details concerning the controversial questions of the legality of the process in which the new Constitution (Annex IV) came to power and replaced the former Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

When the case reached the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that section 6(1) should be interpreted in the way it was meant, namely to guard against arbitrary exile and not extradition, which may not be a permanent removal and does not terminate Canadian citizenship. Hansard from 1981, just before the implentation of the Charter, was cited to reinforce this point. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court majority decision, written by Gerard La Forest, cited Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act (1985) to say the framers' intent was not binding in Charter case law. Rights can be given generous, liberal interpretations, and the right considered in this case was deemed to be important enough that limits would have to be justified.

He was instrumental in getting Trust Bank into ZABG. Following the dismissal, the dismissed executives challenged the amalgamation of Trust Bank assets into ZABG. Having gone through the litigation route, the cases were dismissed by the High Court and parties appealed to the Supreme Court, which culminated in the Supreme Court also dismissing the cases, but ruled that appellants had overlooked the need to, and must still, appeal to the Reserve Bank in the first instance, as provided by Law, against the alleged "sell" of the two banks' assets to ZABG. In September 2010, the RBZ reversed itself and re-issued the commercial banking licenses of the three banks that had been closed.

The appellant was the American Public Health Association, which wanted to force Earl Butz, the then United States Secretary of Agriculture, to treat Salmonella as an adulterant in food. > As plaintiffs in the District Court our appellants alleged in their > complaint that the Secretary of Agriculture was violating certain provisions > of the Wholesome Meat Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq., and the Poultry > Products Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 451 et seq. Specifically, they alleged > that the Secretary was wrongfully refusing to affix to meat and poultry > products, inspected by the Department of Agriculture, labels containing > handling and preparation instructions to protect the consumer against food > poisoning caused by salmonellae and other bacteria.

The case of R v Kapp was instrumental in shifting the focus from formal equality to substantive equality in Canadian jurisprudence. In 1998, the Canadian government granted a communal fishing license exclusively to members of three Aboriginal bands for a period of 24 hours in the Fraser river that allowed them the right to fish and sell their catch. The appellants consisted mainly of a group of non-Aboriginal commercial fishermen who protested against the license and were subsequently charged with fishing at a prohibited time. The fishermen argued that they were being unfairly discriminated against on the basis of race under section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

An appellate court with discretionary jurisdiction is able to delegate error correction to lower courts, while it focuses its limited resources on developing case law properly. In the latter situation, the appellate court will focus on truly novel questions or revisiting older legal rules that are now clearly obsolete or unconstitutional. For example, the United States Supreme Court hears cases by a writ of certiorari, essentially meaning that it calls appellants up to the court only if their case is important enough to merit the resources of the court. The Supreme Court employs a "rule of four", meaning that four justices have to think the case is important enough to hear before the court will grant it review.

In Quayle and Others v R; Attorney General's Reference (No. 2 of 2004) (2005) EWCA Crim 1415 each defendant appealed convictions associated variously with the cultivation or possession of cannabis resin to be used for pain management. The choice facing the appellants was not severe pain without cannabis or absence of pain with cannabis, rather it was the absence of pain with adverse side effects without cannabis, and absence of pain with minimal side effects with cannabis. The difference was restricted to the adverse side effects which, however unpleasant, could not sensibly be said to raise a prima facie possibility of serious injury, let alone one such as would overwhelm the will of the defendant.

Critics of Colegrove complained that it deprived state citizens of federal remedies, and that the outdated apportionments – dating to 1901, 45 years prior – were the vehicle by which rural, conservative interests were allowed to keep a disproportionate influence over the country's politics. Until it was overruled by Baker, Colegrove made it almost impossible for citizens' groups to get help from the federal courts in apportioning legislative and congressional districts. An exception to the reach of Colegrove was allowed in a 1960 case called Gomillion v. Lightfoot, in which the appellants showed that the boundary lines of a district in Alabama had deliberately been drawn to minimize the voting rights of black residents.

However all transactions had to be owned under somebody else's name, because, according to the Statute, only members of the Great Guild had the right to trade and to own property, and membership was refused to them because they were Latvian and of serf origin. In 1747 the Steinhauers brought the case before Riga's Senate but in 1753 it issued its verdict against the appellants. After the Senate's Decision, new restrictions against the Latvians were enacted. The Steinhauers brought their case before the Governor General of Livonia, prince Dolgoruky, who supported them, and eventually the Grand Duke Peter, heir to the Russian Throne, named Johann's brother Daniel commissar of commerce to Schleswig-Holstein, saving their property from confiscation.

During the oral arguments, Kennedy had appeared to side with the conservatives on asking about the legitimacy of the original plaintiffs in bringing the case, but asked both sides difficult questions relating to the redistricting approaches, leaving it difficult for observers to tell which way he would decide. However, some writers expected that he would side with the lower court and not for the appellants. Subsequent to the oral arguments, the Court had agreed to hear one other partisan redistricting case in the same term: Benisek v. Lamone, accepted in December 2017 and heard by the Court in March 2018, which was based on Democratic-favored redistricting of Maryland's 6th congressional district.

Eng Foong Ho v. Attorney-General is the name of two cases of the Singapore courts, a High Court decision delivered in 2008 and the 2009 judgment by the Court of Appeal. The main issue raised by the case was whether the Collector of Land Revenue had treated the plaintiffs (later appellants), who were devotees of the Jin Long Si Temple, unequally by compulsorily acquiring for public purposes the land on which the temple stood but not the lands of a Hindu mission and a Christian church nearby. It was alleged that the authorities had acted in violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, which guarantees the rights to equality before the law and equal protection of the law.

Santorelli and Schloss successfully argued that the law was "discriminatory on its face since it defines 'private or intimate parts' of a woman's but not a man's body as including a specific part of the breast." The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favor of the two women. In their ruling, the two judges wrote: The court also noted in its ruling that "expert testimony at appellants' trial suggested that the enforced concealment of women's breasts reinforces cultural obsession with them, contributes toward unhealthy attitudes about breasts by both sexes and even discourages women from breastfeeding their children." More than 10 years later, Jill Coccaro tested the law when she went topless on Delancey Street and was arrested.

Tsatsi claimed damages for defamation from National Education, Health and Allied Workers' Union (NEHAWU), alleging vicarious liability for certain defamatory statements contained in a report prepared by its branch secretary (the second appellant in this case) and distributed to members in attendance at a NEHAWU general meeting held at the Johannesburg Magistrate's Court. The branch secretary was the senior interpreter at the court, and Tsatsi its manageress. After the meeting, certain court staffers, unaffiliated with NEHAWU, came into possession of copies of the report, and thus of two allegedly defamatory statements: # that Tsatsi "embraces fraudsters"; and # that she "unleashes unprecedented harassment" upon court staff. The appellants, NEHAWU and its branch secretary, denied that the statements were defamatory; in addition, they claimed qualified privilege.

An appeal was already under way on the basis of other evidence. Lord Gifford QC represented Paul Hill and others were represented by human rights solicitor, Gareth Peirce. The appeal hearing had been adjourned to January 1990 at the request of the Guildford Four but once the findings of the Somerset and Avon report were available, the hearing was resumed, with the Crown stating that it did not wish to support the convictions. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, concluded that, regardless of the impact of the content of the material discovered by Avon and Somerset or the alibis or additional evidence the appellants wished to introduce, the level of duplicity meant that all the police evidence was suspect and the case for the prosecution was unsafe.

One of Justice Chandrachud's significant opinions in the sphere of environmental law is his judgment in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v Union of India. A challenge was brought before the Supreme Court against the order of the National Green Tribunal upholding the grant of an Environmental Clearance to a proposed greenfield international airport at Mopa in Goa. A myriad of contentions were urged by the appellants questioning the grant of the clearance, which included the failure to make disclosures on forests and Ecologically Sensitive Zones as well as a faulty appraisal process and the use of erroneous sampling points. The Court observed the numerous deficiencies in the process leading to the grant of the clearance and directed that a rapid EIA be conducted afresh by the project proponent.

Estelle Griswold was Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, who with Buxton, Medical Director for the League, operated a birth control clinic in New Haven. Griswold felt that medically prescribed methods of birth control should be offered and available to married women, for the health of mothers and their economic and emotional stability. Dr. Buxton testified that he advised married women regarding certain methods of birth control to preserve the lives and health of women with certain medical conditions. In Connecticut, devices such as condoms were widely available for preventing the transmission of venereal diseases, and the appellants argued that advice on the use of these devices for birth control for medical purposes should also be permitted.

The case Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] AC 388 is comparable on its commentary on reasonable foreseeability to Chapman v Hearse. The obiter dicta from Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] AC 388 argued that a reasonable man, concerned for the safety of others would avoid the risk of putting others in harms way.Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Ltd [1961] UKPC 2 (18 January 1961). In relation to Chapman v Hearse, it contextualises how the appellant should have considered the implications of his actions on others and whether the end result of the appellants negligence (the death of Dr Cherry) was truly reasonably foreseeable.

This was a decision of the United Kingdom Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, composed of Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Carswell. The decision was made on Thursday 17th June 2004. The issue in the case was whether a person can be deported from the United Kingdom to a state where there are known human rights abuses, or refused asylum to the United Kingdom when the applicant is from such a state. The appellants in the cases, Mr Ullah and Miss Do, wished to rely on an Article of the European Convention on Human Rights other than Article 3 (no body shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment).

The savings clause prevents colonial-era laws from being challenged. The oral arguments in the case began on 28 June 2018, and the court reserved the ruling for a later date. On 13 November 2018, the Caribbean Court of Justice ruled in the case Quincy McEwan, Seon Clarke, Joseph Fraser, Seyon Persaud and the Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD) v The Attorney General of Guyana that Section 153(1)(XLVII) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act is unconstitutional and must be struck down from the legal code. The panel of five judges ruled that the statute, in addition to being archaic and vague, "violated the appellants' right to protection of the law and was contrary to the rule of law".

Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513 at 566-567. As for the nature of the interest affected, L'Heureux-Dubé asserts that the appellants have been "directly and completely excluded, as a couple, from any entitlement to a basic shared standard of living for elderly persons cohabiting in a relationship analogous to marriage." She characterizes the interest involved as "an important facet of full and equal membership in Canadian society." The message this denial gives, L'Heureux-Dubé argues, seems undeniable: ::Given the marginalized position of homosexuals in society, the metamessage that flows almost inevitably from excluding same-sex couples from such an important social institution is essentially that society considers such relationships to be less worthy of respect, concern and consideration than relationships involving members of the opposite sex.

Following exhaustion of their appeals in state court, Hein, Miliotti, Micah and Jason Holland filed individual Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in May and July 2004. The petitions raised identical, overlapping, and separate claims: Brady violations, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, improper exclusion or admission of evidence, juror misconduct, judicial misconduct, cruel and unusual punishment, and arbitrary and capricious sentence reduction. On April 3, 2007, the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a joint Report and Recommendation, recommending that the petitions be denied. All four appellants filed objections to the Magistrate's report, but the United States District Judge adopted the Report and Recommendation without modification.

Richard responded by summoning Woodstock and the other Lords Appellant to the Tower of London; all three refused. This was open dissent, and both Richard and the Appellants knew the implications of such defiance. According to the author of the Eulogium historiarum, Richard asked Woodstock whether his companions were willing to take arms against him, to which the Duke replied: "we do not rebel or arm ourselves against the King except in order to instruct him". Pushed further by Richard, who protested that Parliament did not have the right to command a King even in the case of "the meanest kitchen boy", the Duke darkly reminded his nephew of his own standing: "But I am the son of a king".

The petitioners were supported, among others, by Rabbi Hirsch and the Rothschild family in Frankfurt and by Chief Rabbi Nathan Marcus Adler in Britain. The issue of religious freedom was in the middle of public attention in Hungary at the time, as the liberals were attempting to limit the powers of the Catholic Church, which was only nominally equal to other Christian denominations. When the matter was debated in Parliament on 16 February 1870, the traditionalist cause was supported by Mór Jókai and Ferenc Deák. After the Neolog MP Mór Wahrmann described the appellants as "those who do not wish to leave the crumbling ghetto walls... Afraid their selfish interests will be endangered if matters would be put in order",Patai, p. 320.

The plaintiff-appellants in this case were Norma Jean, Richard Vieth, and Susan Furey, Democrats registered to vote in the state of Pennsylvania. They contended that the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania General Assembly had unconstitutionally gerrymandered the districts for the election of congressional representatives. This, the plaintiffs claimed, denied Democrats full participation in the American political process by violating the one-person one-vote requirement of Article I of the United States Constitution, and denied Democrats equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 2000 census determined that Pennsylvania was entitled to 19 Representatives in the United States Congress (two fewer than the previous delegation) and congressional election districts therefore had to be redrawn consistent with previous Supreme Court rulings.

The Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 125 The Act did not make any mention of the evidence of absent witnesses which was the "sole or decisive" basis of a conviction, (although this rule is one of the criteria which must be considered by a judge when determining if a witness should be allowed anonymity).The Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008, section 5(2)(c) In the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) an augmented panel of five judges unanimously affirmed the convictions of the appellants, declining to follow the "sole or decisive" rule found in the ECtHR cases and expressing support for the code of statutory provisions on hearsay contained within sections 114 to 136 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Sir Sydney Kentridge, lead counsel for the appellants, summarised their arguments as follows: > # Legislation made under the 1911 Act is delegated or subordinate, not > primary. # The legislative power conferred by section 2(1) of the 1911 Act > is not unlimited in scope and must be read according to established > principles of statutory interpretation. # Among these is the principle that > powers conferred on a body by an enabling Act may not be enlarged or > modified by that body unless there are express words authorising such > enlargement or modification. # Accordingly, section 2(1) of the 1911 Act > does not authorise the Commons to remove, attenuate or modify in any respect > any of the conditions on which its law-making power is granted.

Section 2 sets out the sexual offences covered, and has been amended since, including due to the wholesale redefinition of sexual offences in England and Wales by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Section 3 allows judges to waive anonymity on application from defendants and appellants if this is needed to help witnesses come forward or to avoid prejudicing their case, or if it is in the public interest.S. 1-3, as enacted This provision is very rarely used, though some victims waive their own anonymity to talk publicly about their cases. The Act was passed to address perceived deficiencies in an earlier and weaker form of identity protection for victims in cases of rape only, which had been established by the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976.

Coffey's opinion considered three issues: whether the district court had properly found Churchill's criticisms of Waters, Davis and cross-training did not touch on a matter of public concern, whether the appellants' failure to determine that before firing her had been a due process violation and whether they were entitled to qualified immunity from the suit since they argued there was no settled law on the subject.Churchill, 977 F.2d at 1120 To resolve the first issue, he turned to the relevant case law on the subject. In 1968's Pickering v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court had overturned the firing of an Illinois high-school teacher for writing a letter to the editor in a local newspaper critical of the school board's handling of a recent tax increase.

The General Court heard appeals of decisions from the county courts, as well as decisions the General Court had issued under its original jurisdiction.Bruce. 1. pp. 681-82. Originally, the court could hear any appeal, but in 1647 the House of Burgesses passed a law restricting its civil appellate jurisdiction to cases involving an amount at controversy of at least ten pounds sterling or 1600 pounds of tobacco.Chitwood. p. 46. Appellants had to pay a penalty if the General Court upheld the original decision; originally, the appellant had to pay double the original damages, but this was eventually reduced to 115% of the original damages.Chitwood. p. 47. The court had no restrictions, however, on hearing appeals in cases in which no monetary damages were sought.Bruce. 1. p. 686.

The question for the Supreme Court was whether an action for damages against the Appellants in negligence and for breach of statutory duty should be struck out on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. In handing down the judgement of the court, Fennelly J (with whom the other judges concurred) dismissed the tobacco manufacturing company, Gallaher (Dublin) Ltd's, appeal against the a decision made by the High Court in refusing to dismiss the Respondent's claim against the company on the grounds that there was no reasonable cause of action. The judge noted that it had been pleaded on Ms Delahunty's behalf that she had suffered continuing injury since 1995 and that such injury was caused by smoking cigarettes manufactured by Gallaher (Dublin) Ltd. The company disputed whether this was properly pleaded.

Information on composition: Until 2015 civil cases that went to a full proof (hearing) in the sheriff courts of Scotland could be appealed by right to the Inner House of the Court of Session. Appellants could take the appeal to a sheriff principal for an initial appeal, and then onto the Inner House, or they could take the appeal directly to the Inner House. However, the appellate jurisdiction of sheriffs principal for all civil cases (including summary cause and small claims actions) was transferred to the Sheriff Appeal Court following passage of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. The 2014 Act also modified the appellate jurisdiction of the Inner House with civil appeals from the sheriff courts being heard by an appeal sheriff sitting in the Sheriff Appeal Court.

The respondent (plaintiff a quo) instituted action in the High Court against the appellants (defendants a quo) for damages for personal injury allegedly sustained by him as a result of the negligence of the defendants in their performance on him of certain medical and surgical procedures. The defendants raised a special plea of prescription. It appeared that, although the procedures had been performed on the plaintiff in 1993, it was only in early 2000 that he managed to secure medical opinion to the effect that the defendants had conducted themselves negligently and, for that reason, that summons was issued only in April 2000. The question which fell for determination by the High Court was the time at which the period of prescription in respect of the plaintiff's claim had commenced to run.

Justice Goldberg wrote a separate dissent, arguing that the appellants had satisfied their burden of establishing that district boundaries had been purposefully drawn on racial lines.376 U.S. at 67, Goldberg, J. dissenting Goldberg rejected the conclusion that the District Court had found to the contrary. The decision from the three-judge District Court contained a separate opinion for each, therefore, Goldberg argued that the District Court had made no findings of fact at all.376 U.S. at 68, Goldberg, J. dissenting He then went on to discuss and criticize the constitutional standards applied by each of the District Court judges. In this light, he argued that the majority’s grounds for their decision, i.e., accepting the findings and constitutional standards of the District Court, was meaningless and an abdication of the Supreme Court’s responsibilities.

However, Richard was also able to limit their terms of office to a year only, as well as to ensure that the majority of the members were men who already had a history of loyalty to him. This amounted to a concession from parliament; further, except for the Duke of Gloucester and the Earl of Arundel, none of the future Appellants who were to do so much harm to the King and his reign, were appointed. The Commons did not appear to believe the King to be sufficiently restrained by these measures, though, and proceeded to call for further concessions from the Crown. Almost immediately parliament had concluded, Richard denounced the appointed council, and made it clear he would consult it only when absolutely necessary and preferably not at all.

Kapitan Chung, Keng Quee had ten sons, the 4th and best known of whom was Chung Thye Phin. Chung, Keng Quee had four principal wives or "t'sais", including Lim Ah Chen whom he married early in life in China, Tan Gek Im who survived him and Teng Nyong who was the mother of Chung Thye Phin. He also had a secondary wife or "t'sip" Tan Ah Loy, mother of his daughter Cheang Ah Soo.Privy Council Judgement, Appellants Cheang Thye Phin & Others and Respondent Tan Ah Loy (since deceased) on appeal from the Supreme Court of The Straits Settlements (Settlement of Penang) 25 August 1916 delivered in 1919 by The Lord Justice Clerk in the presence of Viscount Finlay and Lord Parmoor They bore him 8 sons and 5 daughters.

Egan v. Canada created an important precedent for gay rights activists. The Court unanimously held that sexual orientation is an analogous ground under Section 15 of the Charter and is therefore a prohibited ground of discrimination. Writing for the plurality, La Forest noted: ::I have no difficulty accepting the appellants' contention that whether or not sexual orientation is based on biological or physiological factors, which may be a matter of some controversy, it is a deeply personal characteristic that is either unchangeable or changeable only at unacceptable personal costs, and so falls within the ambit of s. 15 protection as being analogous to the enumerated grounds.Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513 at 528. This excerpt has been frequently cited by the Courts in the fallout of Egan.

They felt that the previous settled law that the court should look to the "primary purpose".Eclairs Group Ltd v JKX Oil & Gas plc, at paragraph 51. This was not a matter on which the court should rule without the benefit of argument. Lord Mance was particularly concerned that after the Supreme Court had circulated its draft judgment to the parties, the appellants responded by stating that they had argued their case on the basis that the "principal purpose" test was not being challenged by the respondents, and the respondents had responded by arguing the proposed test on causation was a "new development in the law" and so the appeals should not be allowed and/or that there should be a further hearing on the issue of causation.

When Peña was taken to the Brooklyn Navy Yard pending deportation, Filártiga lodged a civil complaint in U.S. courts, brought forth by the Center for Constitutional Rights, for Joelito's wrongful death by torture, asking for damages in the amount of $10 million. After an initial district court dismissal citing precedents that limited the function of international law to relations between states, on appeal, the circuit ruled that freedom from torture was guaranteed under customary international law. "The torturer has become – like the pirate and slave trader before him – hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind", wrote the court. The appellants argued that Peña's actions had violated wrongful death statutes, the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, and other customary international law.

For example, the appellant might have to file the notice of appeal with the appellate court, or with the court from which the appeal is taken, or both. Some courts have samples of a notice of appeal on the court's own web site. In New Jersey, for example, the Administrative Office of the Court has promulgated a form of notice of appeal for use by appellants, though using this exact form is not mandatory and the failure to use it is not a jurisdictional defect provided that all pertinent information is set forth in whatever form of notice of appeal is used.Jeffrey S. Mandel, New Jersey Appellate Practice (Gann Law Books) The deadline for beginning an appeal can often be very short: traditionally, it is measured in days, not months.

And this court has gone very far to protect against loss threatened by such action. (268 U.S. 510, 535) McReynolds also agreed that businesses are not generally entitled to protection against loss of business subsequent to "exercise of proper power of the state" (268 U.S. 510, 535). However, citing a number of relevant business and property law cases, he concluded that the passage of the revised Act was not "proper power" in this sense, and constituted unlawful interference with the freedom of both schools and families. In response to the claims by the appellants that the suits were premature, attempting to prevent rather than to rectify a problem, Justice McReynolds simply referred them to the evidence provided by the appellees showing that the schools were already suffering falling enrollments.

Rowell v. Lindsay, 113 U.S. 97 (1885), was a bill brought by the appellants, John S. Rowell and Ira Rowell, the plaintiffs in the circuit court. The bill was in equity against Edmund J. Lindsay and William Lindsay, the appellees, to restrain the infringement of reissued letters patent No. 2,909, dated March 31, 1868, granted to the plaintiffs for 'a new and improved cultivator.. The answer of the defendants, among other defenses, denied infringement of the letters patent. The plaintiffs contended that infringement of their letters patent was made out by the evidence, which tended to show that the defendants constructed and sold seeding-machines made according to the specification of letters patent granted to John H. Thomas and Joseph W. Thomas, dated June 30, 1874, for 'an improvement in seeding-machines.

Donkey voting shows up in US state elections that use the "long ballot" for numerous offices, or in multi-seat elections where there are several candidates from the same party. In his book The Rise of Guardian Democracy: The Supreme Court's Role in Voting Rights, 1845-1969 (Massachusetts: Harvard UP, 1974), Ward E.Y. Elliott notes: > "One long-time Democrat precinct captain in Denver noted that, besides > having party or lobby support, a candidate had to rank high in the ballot > list. Since ballot ranking was alphabetical, most of the eight Denver > [district State] Senators had names beginning with A, B or C." (p 362, > citing appellants’ brief in Lucas v Colorado). In 2018 North Carolina Supreme Court election, a rule change resulted in the order of the names on the ballot differing from previous years.

Human Genes as Company Property Tested by Myriad Patent CaseMeredith Cohn, The Baltimore Sun. September 22, 2012 Gene patent case could impact patients, research: Promising personalized medicine field could be limited by gene patents The same issue, namely the patentability of the DNA sequence in the BRCA1 gene, was considered in a February 2013 case in the Federal Court of Australia where the validity of Myriad's patent was upheld. This was also a landmark ruling, and an appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia was to be heard in August 2013. The submissions for that appeal were due on June 14, 2013, the day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling was published, and the appellants in the Australian case stated that the U.S. ruling was referenced within their submission.

The jury found for the United States, with the judge issuing a sentence of condemnation against the wine. The appellants for the wine appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that there had been irregularities in the proceedings, as it had started as an Admiralty court case but then was treated as an Exchequer court case under the Judiciary Act of 1789 and should not have been a jury trial. The District Attorney argued that there was nothing stopping an Admiralty court from calling for a jury trial, citing the judices selecti of the Roman Empire. In 1823, the Supreme Court found that there were irregularities; when the court found that the wine was seized on land, the judge should have stopped the trial, as he had no jurisdiction.

It appears by a stipulation in the case that the first Monday in every month is the beginning of a new term of the Superior Court of Cook County, from which this suit was removed. It also appears that the suit was brought to the September term, 1883, of that court, and the defendants, who were the removing party, and are also appellants here, obtained an extension of time, by order of the court, for 30 days from September 20, to answer the original bill, and like time was granted to the defendants in a cross-bill to answer that. This time was extended afterwards in both cases, by agreement of counsel, until January 11, 1884, and on that day they were filed. The application for this removal was made in the February term, 1884.

This overruled the District Court's order that would have lifted the stay effective August 7. Oral arguments in the case were heard on October 24, 2012 beginning at 9:30 before Panel 1 of the Court. During the hearing, questions were posed to both lawyers from the bench about the appropriateness of Woollard filing suit in Federal court challenging a ruling by a state agency, an action subject to the application of the Younger abstention and Rooker-Feldman doctrines. Questions were also posed as to the curiousness of Maryland's statute only prohibiting handguns and not long guns; Appellants asserted that the permitting law was put in place in response to a problem with handgun violence; that handguns were overwhelmingly the weapon of choice for criminals and the law was enacted to control this problem.

The court entered judgment for appellee. The Puerto Rico Supreme Court modified the Superior Court's judgment, holding, inter alia, that the pertinent statute, as properly construed, requires a by-election only if the party of the legislator vacating the seat fails to designate a replacement within 60 days after the vacancy occurs, and that, if the party selects a single candidate within such period, that candidate is declared "automatically elected to fill the vacancy." The court rejected appellants' contention that this procedure violated the Federal Constitution. While the case was pending before the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, appellee held a primary election in which only its members were permitted to participate, and which resulted in the selection of a person who, pursuant to the Supreme Court's mandate, was sworn in as the new representative from District 31.

In 1848, the Seneca Indians of the Cattaraugus and Allegany reservations held a constitutional convention. They adopted a new form of constitution and government modeled on that of the United States, including tribal popular election of chiefs. Traditionally, hereditary chiefs were selected by clan mothers and ruled for life (unless one displeased his clan's mother.) PETER L. POODRY, DAVID C. PETERS, SUSAN LAFROMBOISE, JOHN A. REDEYE, and STONEHORSE LONE GOEMAN, Petitioners-Appellants, v. TONAWANDA BAND OF SENECA INDIANS; BERNARD PARKER, a/k/a Ganogehdaho; KERVIN JONATHAN, a/k/a Skongataigo; EMERSON WEBSTER, a/k/a Gauhnahgoi; DARREN JIMERSON, a/k/a Sohjeahnohous; HARLEY GORDON, a/k/a Gah-En-Keh; JAMES LOGAN; and DARWIN HILL,, 1995, accessed 22 Mar 2010 The Tonawanda Band did not want to make such changes, and seceded from the main Seneca nation in New York.

Mrs. Lavell appealed Judge Grossberg's decision to the Federal Court of Appeal, arguing that Judge Grossberg erred in his determination that the impugned Section of the Indian Act was not in violation of the appellant's right to equality before the law. Mr. Justice Thurlow, writing for a unanimous court, agreed, declaring the impugned section discriminatory on the basis of sex. Citing the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Drybones, Justice Thurlow rejected the reasoning of Judge Grossberg that since all women, Canadian and Indian, were being treated the same under the Act that there was no deprivation of the appellant's equality before the law. Rather, Justice Thurlow determines that in order for the Indian Act to respect the equality of the appellants, the law must treat Indian women by the same fashion as it treats Indian men: as equals.

In this case, on one hand is the Appellants' right to family life with reference to Mr George Dimbo's rights as an Irish citizen and on the other hand is public policy issues of the State. Consideration should be given to the education of the child, the age, development and opportunities available to the child. How much these factors will impact an application is based on the facts of that application, meaning has the child lived in Ireland for many years, has the child been involved in the community and school activities and so on so forth. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court in quashing the deportation orders because the Minister did not take the rights of Mr George Dimbo into account especially when he had himself written a letter explaining his progress in school.

The Sheriff Appeal Court can remit an appeal to the Inner House under Section 112 of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 provided an application is made by a party to the case and,Once remitted the case is treated as though the appeal began with the Court of Session. An application to remit an appeal to the Inner House of the Court of Session was rejected by the Sheriff Appeal Court, as advised by Lord Drummond Young sitting as a Lord Ordinary, in the case of First Time Limited vs Alexander Fraser (Liquidator of Denmore Investments Limited). Sheriff Principal Murrary stated:The Appeal Sheriffs believe that the appellants arguments would potentially allow for the case to be resolved without proof, and that no significant question of law was at stake, nor was there any compelling public interest.

In 1773, London bookseller James Hinton and Edinburgh writer Alexander M'Conochie sued Donaldson and John Wood in Edinburgh, and John Meurose in Kilmarnock over copyright infringement of several titles. Donaldson and his brother John were appellants in Donaldson v Beckett (1774), against the printers and booksellers Thomas Becket (or Beckett) (previously apprenticed to British publisher Andrew Millar), Peter Abraham de Hondt, John Rivington, William Johnson, William Strahan, Thomas Longman, William Richardson, John Richardson, Thomas Lowndes, Thomas Caslon, George Kearsley, Henry Baldwin, William Owen, Thomas Davies, and Thomas Cadell. The case resulted in a ruling by the British House of Lords on the issue of perpetual common law copyright and copyright as a statute that could have a limited duration. James Boswell was Donaldson's advocate in at least three of these lawsuits, Donaldson v Beckett, Donaldson v Reid and Hinton v Donaldson.

Under UK law, this meant that airline crew were in general entitled to 'normal or comparable pay' whilst on leave. BA crew were paid a basic fixed wage, but they also received additional payment in the form of a 'Flying Pay Supplement' and a 'Time Away from Base Allowance'. During periods of statutory leave, staff, including the appellants, were paid according to their basic wage, without any allowance for time that they would have spent flying, or away from base, had they been working according to their usual patterns. A case was brought in the Employment Tribunals by approximately 2,750 BA pilots, who argued that the 'normal pay' condition under UK law meant that BA were obliged to pay them as though they had spent time away from base and on flights during their annual leave.

After three years, a formal agreement was entered into on February 24, 1942, between Gruber and Sawyer partners, doing business as Sawyer's. Ed Mayer and people within the Sawyer's organization were uncertain what to call their new product, but they eventually came up with the name "View-Master". The View- Master brand name eventually came to be recognized by 65 percent of the world's population, but William Gruber disliked the name which Mayer gave it, thinking that it sounded too much like Toast-Master, Mix-Master, or some other kitchen appliance.285 F.2d 683 Eva R. MAYER, Executrix of the Estate of Edwin E. Mayer, deceased, Harold J. Graves and Beulah F. Graves, Thomas O. Meyer and Pauline Meyer, Augusta Kelly, and The Estate of Raymond F. Kelly, deceased, Augusta Kelly, Residuary Legatee, Appellants, v.

Children's Television Workshop (1976) in pointing out that the copyright in the derivative work covered only the novel additions to the underlying work. The agreement did not authorize the BBC to make drastic cuts in the script, so the BBC had no right authorize Time Life or ABC to make such cuts. The court reviewed the cut and uncut version of the second broadcast, and found, "the truncated version at times omitted the climax of the skits to which appellants' rare brand of humor was leading and at other times deleted essential elements in the schematic development of a story line." The court dismissed arguments by ABC that Monty Python knew in advance but did not object to the cuts, that the shows were joint work of Monty Python and the BBC, or that the contract allowed such cuts.

The ratio decidendi, or legal point in the case which determined the judgment, was a narrow one. The appeals were allowed on the ground that the Minister had not discharged the burden of proving the validity of the detention orders. Under section 8(1) of the ISA, the President's satisfaction that a person poses a national security risk is a condition precedent to the Minister's power to make a detention order. The Minister attempted to demonstrate that the President had been so satisfied before the detention order was made by pointing to the fact that the recitals in the detention orders stated that the President "is satisfied", and by filing an affidavit by the Permanent Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs which asserted that the "government" was satisfied that the appellants were a danger to national security.

Against the Adversus factiosos in ecclesia circulated by Thomas Lister, Mush wrote Declaratio Motuum (1601) collecting documentation, and in 1602, with Anthony Champney, Bluet and Cecil, went as a deputation to Rome where for eight months they fought for their petition. Their petition, first for six bishops and then for six archpriests, was refused; but though the archpriest succeeded in maintaining his position, the appellants were acquitted of the charges of rebellion and schism. On his return to England, Mush was one of the thirteen priests who signed the protestation of allegiance to Elizabeth I of England (1603). In his later years he acted as assistant to two successive archpriests, George Blackwell and George Birkhead, in Yorkshire, but he seems to have been acting as chaplain to Lady Dormer in Buckinghamshire at the time of his death.

The facts of this case, which involved two separate appellants, were similar to those of Zamir. Khera had entered the country by allegedly deceiving a medical officer into thinking he was not married. An answer to the contrary would have precluded him from being given leave to enter the UK. The other appellant, Khawaja, having unsuccessfully applied for a UK visa in Brussels, entered the UK by flying into Manchester, saying he would stay for one week and then return to Brussels to continue his studies. Facts later surfaced proving that, at the time of his entry, contrary to his declaration that he was single, he had been married to a woman who had entered the UK on the same flight but had been attended to by a different immigration officer and was granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK as a returning resident.

A third group, the Kansas Delawares, lived with the main body on the Kansas reservation but remained in Kansas when the Cherokee Delawares moved to Oklahoma; under an 1866 treaty, the Kansas Delawares elected to become UScitizens and to receive individual parcels of land in Kansas but had to dissolve their relationship with the tribe and participate in tribal assets only to the extent of a "just proportion" of the tribe's credits "then held in trust by the United States;" and the descendants of this group are not a federally recognized tribe. The funds were being distributed to redress the breach of a tribal land treaty and appellee alleged that its exclusion violated its equal protection rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The district court rendered judgment in favor of appellee and enjoined further distributions. The appellate court affirmed and appellants sought review.

Castlemaine Tooheys were represented as the appellants in the landmark 1990 case of Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia, heard by the High Court of Australia. Since the brewery operated outside South Australia, but sold its products there, a South Australian Act Amendment, imposing a substantial refund value for non- refillable bottles produced in other states, was ruled to be inconsistent with section 92 of the Constitution of Australia. Due to the significant discriminatory and protectionist financial impacts that they faced, Castlemaine Tooheys successfully invalidated the law.. Lion Nathan acquired a 50% stake in Bond's Natbrew Holdings in 1990, and took total ownership in 1992. Production of Hahn-branded beers was moved from the Camperdown Hahn Brewery to Tooheys, some time between 1993 (Lion's acquisition of Hahn) and 19991998, according to A Quiet Beer with Chuck Hahn; 1999 according to Lion Nathan History (when Hahn Brewery was renamed Malt Shovel Brewery).

Because the Florida avocado growers sued to enjoin the enforcement against them of the California law because it was unconstitutional, the case was brought before a three-judge district court. The growers challenged the constitutionality of the statute on three grounds: :(1) that, under the Supremacy Clause, the California standard must be deemed displaced by the federal standard for determining the maturity of avocados grown in Florida; :(2) that the application of the California statute to Florida-grown avocados denied appellants the Equal Protection of the Laws, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; and :(3) that its application unreasonably burdened or discriminated against interstate marketing of Florida-grown avocados in violation of the Commerce Clause.373 U.S. at 134-35. At the initial stage of the case, the three-judge district court dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, finding that there was not a current justiciable case or controversy.

The Court found that Cantwell's action was protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Justice Owen Roberts wrote in a unanimous opinion that "to condition the solicitation of aid for the perpetuation of religious views or systems upon a license, the grant of which rests in the exercise of a determination by state authority as to what is a religious cause, is to lay a forbidden burden upon the exercise of liberty protected by the Constitution." In general the court held with respect to the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause and their embodiment in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: > We hold that the statute, as construed and applied to the appellants, > deprives them of their liberty without due process of law in contravention > of the Fourteenth Amendment. The fundamental concept of liberty embodied in > that Amendment embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Harris v Evans was a 1998 appeal civil court case in the United Kingdom between John Terence George Harris, a bungee jump operator, and Glynne Evans, an inspector of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), and the Health and Safety Executive itself. The appeal was against a prior case in which the respondent, Harris, argued that the appellants made "negligently excessive requirements" of their business. The case was presided over by the Vice Chancellor Sir Richard Scott, Lord Justice Auld and Lord Justice Schiemann and involved the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Evans had given advice to local authorities on the safety requirements of a mobile crane and other equipment used by Harris in connection with their bungee jump business which led to the local authorities either banning Harris from offering bungee jump services or serving prohibition notices under the 1974 Act.

The CCJ's structure and appellate jurisdiction, however, address this issue by providing a forum for the creation of jurisprudence in the gap in Caribbean law where the JCPC was never able to rule upon while also ruling on the area of law the JCPC specializes in. In the three years following the CCJ's inauguration, civil appeals petitioned to the court outnumbered criminal appeals by nearly seven to one, with half of the civil appeals coming from appellants the CCJ deemed too poor to pay for the filing costs. By contrast, under the JCPC, civil appeals have never outnumbered criminal appeals. This combination of lower litigant cost for the CCJ, the Court's willingness to grant in forma pauperis and having a wider field of law to hear appeals on has enabled the CCJ to hear types of cases from the region that the JCPC has never known.

Stewart authored the opinion of the Court, which found no evidence in the record that the exclusion of the six from the golf course had been discriminatory, the record which reached the Court had not included the record of the federal trial and injunction. Finding that the North Carolina Supreme Court had consistently avoided any investigations of its own regarding the accuracy of a trial record, the Court held that North Carolina had not acted improperly when it had refused to look into the accuracy of the record in this case. As a result, the majority found that there was not a federal question. The dissent, penned by Chief Justice Warren, said that the record showed that the appellants had in fact offered proof of the federal injunction and trial into the record, and that the case should have been, as a result remanded or decided on the merits.

They used the money to fund the singing career of Kong's wife, Ms Ho Yeow Sun, as part of the Crossover Project, a church mission which they said was to evangelise through Ms Ho's music. The six appealed the verdict, and on 7 April 2017, the Court of Appeal reduced their sentences by approximately half, based on its finding that “the appellants should only have been convicted of the offence of criminal breach of trust simpliciter under section 406 of the Penal Code”. The judges said it was a situation that involved no personal gain on the part of the six, and that they believed their acts, especially in sham investments would advance the interest of the church. A Criminal Reference filed by the AGC in a bid to reinstate the original convictions was heard by a five-judge Court of Appeal and dismissed on 1 Feb 2018.

O’ Donnell J rejected two “far reaching” propositions of the appellants. First, he rejected the argument that no child could be returned to a jurisdiction that did not recognise the “inalienable and imprescriptible” rights of the family under Articles 41 and 42 of the Irish Constitution.Nottinghamshire County Council v B [2011] IESC 48 [44]; [2013] 4 IR 662 [186] (O'Donnell J). Secondly, he addressed the argument that the adoption would not be permitted under Irish law on the basis of the facts of this case. It was not enough, he held, to simply establish that the law of another jurisdiction (here the law of England and Wales) was different to the law in Ireland. He held that it was necessary to go further and show “that the manner in which these children would be dealt with by the courts of the requesting jurisdiction must necessarily offend against the provisions of the Irish Constitution if administered in an Irish court”.

The Article provides that all existing laws shall continue in force after the commencement of the Constitution subject to "modifications, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions as may be necessary to bring them into conformity" with the Constitution of Singapore. However, in Review Publishing, the Court of Appeal held that the common law of defamation, as modified by the Defamation Act,. restricts the right to free speech. The appellants in that case pointed out that the Defamation Ordinance 1960,. which presupposed the existence of the common law of defamation, had been enacted before the 1963 Constitution of the State of Singapore.Brought into force by the Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore (State Constitutions) Order in Council 1963 (S.I. 1963 No. 1493). Thus, it could not have been a law enacted to derogate from the right to free speech guaranteed by Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, which became applicable to Singapore when it became a state of the Federation of Malaysia on 16 September 1963.

In the light of these assumptions, section 10 of the Act limited the parents' religious rights both under section 31 and under section 15.Para 27. The court held further that, in relation to the question of whether the limitation on the rights of the appellants could be justified in terms of section 36 of the Constitution, the relevant test was that limitations on constitutional rights could only pass constitutional muster if it was concluded that, considering the nature and importance of the right and the extent to which it was limited, such limitation was justified in relation to the purpose, importance and effect of the provision which resulted in the limitation, taking into account the availability of less restrictive means to achieve the relevant purpose. Although there may be special problems attendant on undertaking the limitations analysis in respect of religious practices, the standard to be applied was the nuanced and contextual one required by section 36, not the rigid one of strict scrutiny.Para 31.

Jacobsen, the Court had held that, because of the Florida growers' allegations that California officials had consistently condemned Florida avocados as unfit for sale in California, "thus requiring [the Florida growers]—to prevent destruction and complete loss of their shipments—to reship the avocados to and sell them in other States." Thus it was evident that "there is an existing dispute between the parties as to present legal rights amounting to a justiciable controversy which appellants are entitled to have determined on the merits." Second, even on the present inadequate and ambiguous record, the Florida growers demonstrated sufficient injury to warrant at least a trial of their allegations. It was conceded that the State, in objecting to the growers' proffered evidence, did not dispute the claim that some shipments of Florida avocados had, in fact, been rejected by California for failure to comply with the oil content requirement, to at least the extent of as much as 6.4% of the total shipments of Florida avocados into California.

The Appellant, the Home Office, refused the claimants state support under Section 55 of the Act which allowed the Home Office to refuse support to asylum seekers who did not make their claim for asylum as soon as reasonably practicable. The Court of Appeal, and subsequently the House of Lords, observed this legislation with reference to Section 55(5) that allows an exception that provides that support should still be provided to asylum- seekers if a failure to do so would violate their human rights. Hence, Adam, Limbuela, and Tesema responded by arguing that their circumstances satisfied the provision in Section 55(5)(a) which entitled them to receive state support from the Home Office due to violation of their rights under the ECHR (within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998). The charity Shelter, and the National Council for Civil Liberties and Justice provided written submissions in support of the appellants as Interveners.

Sir Thomas Mortimer (c. 1350–1399) was a medieval English soldier and statesman who served briefly in several important administrative and judicial state offices in Ireland and played a part in the opposition to the government of King Richard II. He was an illegitimate member of the Mortimer family, who were one of the leading noble houses of England and Ireland, and he helped to manage the Mortimer lands during the minority of the family heir, his nephew Roger, earl of March. Sir Thomas was also a close associate of the Lords Appellant, the powerful faction of nobles who opposed the administration of King Richard II. Sir Thomas took part in the Lords Appellants' rebellion in 1387 against the king, and fought at the Battle of Radcot Bridge, during which he killed Sir Thomas Molineux, one of the royal commanders. 10 years later, when the king took his revenge against the rebels, this act led to his conviction for treason.

One twentieth-century historian has commented that "it is generally recognised that all the constitutional and political troubles of Richard II's reign can be traced back to the Wonderful parliament." This includes the subsequent military attack by the Lords Appellant on Robert de Vere and those of Richard on the Appellants; although the court party was swept from power in 1386—when, as J. S. Roskell put it, "the exercise of royal authority was virtually handed over to a parliamentary commission"—Richard II had a "violent reaction" to the proceedings. Roskell also suggests that the affair was not so much an argument about who should rule, King or parliament, as the answer to that being anything other than the King would have been anachronistic. Rather, it was regarding whose attitude towards parliament would prevail: the King, who saw parliament as being a tool of royal authority, or parliament, who saw themselves as conciliar to the King.

Research consistently failed to provide any empirical or scientific basis for regarding them as disorders or abnormalities.Brief of Amici Curiae American Psychological Association; Maine Psychological Association; National Association of Social Workers; National Association of Social Workers, Maine Chapter; Maine Association of Psychiatric Physicians; Child Welfare League of America; Maine Children’s Alliance; Maine Medical Association; American Academy of Pediatrics, Maine Chapter; Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute; Kids First; and Community Counseling Center, In Support of Appellants (October 12, 2006) There is a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. Because of this, the major mental health professional organizations do not encourage individuals to try to change their sexual orientation. Indeed, such interventions are ethically suspect because they can be harmful to the psychological well-being of those who attempt them; clinical observations and self-reports indicate that many individuals who unsuccessfully attempt to change their sexual orientation experience considerable psychological distress.

Their appeal against the rejection of planning permission led to a three-day public inquiry which upheld the original decision with the inspector reporting that the building was "seriously out of keeping with the general character of buildings in the National Park" and that the appellants "had failed to establish a functional need for this dwelling to serve the agricultural and forestry enterprises". The inspector did however grant the couple personal temporary permission to remain in the building for a further 18 months on compassionate grounds. An enforcement notice was issued at the end of the period of the 18-month temporary permission and in October 2003 they received a summons to appear at Haverfordwest Magistrates Court where they were fined £300. By chance, on the following day they were providing evidence to the public inquiry into the new policy of low-impact development being developed by Pembrokeshire Council and the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park.

The High Court found no error in the proceedings and decree of the circuit court. But as the time limited by the decree, to-wit, April 1, 1881, for the payment to Walker by W. F. Flagg, or some one of the defendants to the cross-bill, of the said sum of $25,207.18, with interest, has passed, we think the time for such payment should be extended. The appellants, while they were litigating their rights with Walker in this Court, having given an appeal bond, which superseded the decree of the circuit court, were not required to make the payment. The court directed that the decree of the circuit court be so modified as to extend the time for the payment of the sum coming to Walker for the period of six months from the filing of the mandate of this Court in the circuit court, and, as so modified, the decree of the circuit was affirmed.

S v Mlonyeni, an important case in South African criminal procedure, was an appeal against the convictions of the appellants on two charges of murder in connection with traditional witch-craft practices and the modern method of 'necklace' killings. The court held that the provisions of s144(3)(a)(i) of the CPA are explicitly to the effect that the State is not bound by the contents of the summary of substantial facts. There is, therefore, no obligation on the State to seek an amendment to its summary, whether before or after it leads evidence which may be in conflict therewith. If it does seek such an amendment before the leading of evidence, it is to the advantage, and not to the prejudice, of the defense in at least two respects: # it warns the defense that the summary is incorrect; and # it provides ammunition for the cross-examination of witnesses who may have furnished the information on which the summary was based.

The district court wrote that the computer code "... does more, in other words, than convey a message" and that "... it has a distinctly functional, non- speech aspect in addition to reflecting the thoughts of the programmers." The appeals court later wrote that "Under the circumstances amply shown by the record, the injunction's linking prohibition validly regulates the Appellants' opportunity instantly to enable anyone anywhere to gain unauthorized access to copyrighted movies on DVDs" thus upholding the injunction against publishing links to the DeCSS code in these circumstances. The appeals court did consider the prior restraint and free expression issues, but treated the DeCSS program primarily as a means of evading copyright protection, and under that theory, held that the 2600 site could be permanently enjoined from posting the DeCSS code, and from linking to sites that posted it in an attempt to make the code available. The case was not taken to the Supreme Court.

The previous year had seen increasing hostility between the young King Richard II and his magnates. This crisis reached a head in November 1386, when the Wonderful Parliament compelled King Richard to remove his chancellor, Michael de la Pole. According to the 16th-century chronicler Raphael Holinshed: In the words of a modern English historian: On Saturday 22 September 1397 Sir Thomas Mortimer was summoned to stand trial as a traitor. Mortimer’s alleged crime was the slaying of Thomas Molineux, constable of Chester Castle, at the skirmish at Radcot Bridge in 1387. Molineux had been one of the most important Royal agents in the Chester Palinate, and had been responsible for the daily exercise of de Vere’s power in the region. In spite of Richard II’s enduring resentment against the killer of his trusted servant, there were deeper political considerations behind the proceedings against a man who had been merely one of many gentry supporters of the Appellants.

In adopting this conclusion I follow closely my noble > and learned friends Lord Templeman and Lord Jauncey. What the appellants are > obliged to propose is that the deliberate and painful infliction of physical > injury should be exempted from the operation of statutory provisions the > object of which is to prevent or punish that very thing, the reason for the > proposed exemption being that both those who will inflict and those who will > suffer the injury wish to satisfy a perverted and depraved sexual desire. > Sado-masochistic homosexual activity cannot be regarded as conducive to the > enhancement or enjoyment of family life or conducive to the welfare of > society. A relaxation of the prohibitions in sections 20 and 47 can only > encourage the practice of homosexual sado-masochism and the physical cruelty > that it must involve (which can scarcely be regarded as a "manly diversion") > by withdrawing the legal penalty and giving the activity a judicial > imprimatur.

The Court speculated that the "only services that lend themselves to advertising are the routine ones," precisely the services that Bates and O'Steen were advertising. "Although the precise service demanded in each task may vary slightly, and although legal services are not fungible, these facts do not make advertising misleading so long as the attorney does the necessary work at the advertised price. The argument that legal services are so unique that fixed rates cannot meaningfully be established is refuted by the record in this case: The State Bar itself sponsors a Legal Services Program in which the participating attorneys agree to perform services like those advertised by the appellants at standardized rates." And although advertising for legal services is necessarily incomplete — responsible lawyers will, of course, disclaim that all cases are "simple" ones — a rough estimate of the cost is more useful to the public than keeping them in the dark entirely.

R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56 is a House of Lords case noted for containing obiter comments by the Judiciary acting in their official capacity suggesting that there may be limits to parliamentary sovereignty, the orthodox position being that it is unlimited in the United Kingdom. The case, brought by Jackson and two other members of the Countryside Alliance, challenged the use of the Parliament Acts to enact the Hunting Act 2004. The appellants claimed that the Parliament Act 1911 could not be used to pass the Parliament Act 1949 which amended the 1911 Act; the Hunting Act, which was passed only in accordance with the modified as opposed to the original requirements of the Parliament Acts procedure, was therefore invalid. The Divisional Court and Court of Appeal both rejected this claim, although the Court of Appeal held that Parliament Acts procedure could not be used to effect "fundamental constitutional changes".

In 1388, Humphrey Stafford was eventually caught up in the crisis of the Lords Appellant, being required by them to take oaths of loyalty to the regime in Dorset. It was at this time – in a possibly related incident – that members of the Cornish gentry conspired to assassinate him, eventually managing to shoot him 'with a certain engine called a "gunne" so that his life was despaired of.' However, since at the same time he loaned King Richard II 100 marks, and later received a royal appointment to assess the Appellants' forfeited lands there, the king clearly did not see Stafford as a major player in the rebellion locally. Following Richard II's deposition by Henry Bollingbroke in 1399, Stafford does not seem to have lost royal favour by his previous support for the old king; indeed, within a few weeks of Henry's coronation he was referred to as a 'King's Knight' and was granted the royal manor of Seavington, Somerset.

High Court Chief Justice Gibbs judged that: "The appellants have an interest in the subject matter of the present action which is greater than that of other members of the public and indeed greater than that of other persons of Aboriginal descent who are not members of the Gournditch-jmara people. The applicants and other members of the Gournditch-jmara [ie, the Gunditjmara] people would be more particularly affected than other members of the Australian community by the destruction of the relics".Weir, Jessica (2009) pp.13-18 On 30 March 2007, the Gunditjmara were recognised by the Federal Court of Australia to be the native title-holders of almost of Crown land and waters in the Portland area.. On 27 July 2011, together with the Eastern Maar people, the Gunditjmara people were recognised to be the native title-holders of almost of Crown land in the Yambuk region, including Lady Julia Percy Island, known to them as Deen Maar..

Byrd in advance of trial moved to suppress the use of the marked money, claiming it had been illegally seized. The seizure in turn depends upon the validity of their arrest. The supporting affidavit offered by these two appellants recited in part: :: 'That at about four (4) o'clock, A.M., on the morning of March 25, 1955, they were awakened in their apartment, located at Columbia Road, N.W., Washington, D.C., by the noise created by someone breaking in a doorway in the hallway, leading to their apartment (only), and that upon his cracking his door (with a chain thereon), to ascertain the origin of said noise, that officers Wilson, Pappas and four others did break the chain off of the door, and forcibly enter his apartment.' : Just what happened in exact detail at the doorway to apartment #1 and precisely what was said by the respective participants cannot be determined conclusively from the record before us.

The appellants argued first that the fact that the kilogram and the pound were recognised as equally legal units – notwithstanding the 1994 modifications – operated as an implied repeal of Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 in respect of weights and measures regulation. The doctrine of implied repeal means that where provisions of one Act of Parliament are inconsistent or repugnant to the provisions of an earlier Act, the later Act abrogates the inconsistency in the earlier one. In this case, it was argued that by proclaiming the equal status and legality of metric and imperial measures, Parliament had wished to repeal the authorisation contained in the 1972 Act allowing Ministers to adopt secondary legislation in the field of weights and measures to comply with EU law. Consequently, the Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Metrication) (Amendment) Order 1994 and the Units of Measurement Regulations 1994, both adopted on the basis of this authorisation, were now invalid.

Pearce v. Ham, 113 U.S. 585 (1885), was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois regarding a bill filed by Charles I. Ham, the appellee, against Isaac N. Pearce and Andrew J. Kuykendall, the appellants. Originally, one Joseph K. Frick contracted with the County Court of Johnson County in the State of Illinois, where he agreed to build, according to certain plans and specifications, a courthouse for said county at Vienna, the county seat, furnishing the material and completing it by the first Monday of September 1870, in consideration whereof the county court agreed to pay him $38,357 in the bonds of Johnson county, bearing ten percent interest, and due in six years. Frick never did any work on the building, and, owing to some misunderstanding with the county court, abandoned the contract and told Kuykendall that he might go on and build the courthouse if he chose to do so.

334; Brearly v. Norris, 23 Ark. 771. In 84 U. S. 530, in a like case, it was held by this Court that the failure to present the claim is, in the absence of circumstances constituting an excuse, fatal to the bill for relief in equity. It is sought in argument on behalf of the appellants to distinguish their case--at least the case of the two infant children of Samuel D. Morgan--from any case within the statute of nonclaim on the ground that at the death of their father, his title to the real estate, which constituted the plantation, descended to them as his heirs at law, and thereafter, as to the operations conducted by John Morgan in 1864 and 1865, having no guardian, the latter was in equity their representative and guardian de son tort and trustee, so that upon his death and until they arrived at age, there was no one competent to make a demand against his administrator, within the terms of the statute.

On appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, the appellants, federally recognized Native American Tribe and the Secretary of the Interior, challenged a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granting appellee, unrecognized Native American tribe, an injunction in an action seeking a declaration that appellee's exclusion from an award violated the United States Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. The Delaware Indians, who originally resided in the Northeastern United States, were gradually forced to move westward in the 19th century, and the tribe became geographically scattered. One group, the Cherokee Delawares, which initially had settled on a Kansas reservation as part of the tribe's main body, eventually moved to "Indian Country" in Oklahoma, became assimilated with the Cherokees, and is today a federally recognized tribe. Another group, the Absentee Delawares, which never joined the main body in Kansas but migrated to Oklahoma and settled with the Wichita and Caddo Indians, is also a federally recognized tribe.

But he sent to Rome, Chevalier, the Jansenist Vicar-General of Meaux whom the Pope did not, however, admit to his presence, when it became known that his sole purpose was to wrest the admission from Clement XI that the Bull was obscure and required an explanation. In a consistory held on June 27, 1716, the Pope delivered a passionate allocution, lasting three hours, in which he informed the cardinals of the treatment which the Bull had received in France, and expressed his purpose of divesting Noailles of the cardinalate. The following November he sent two new Briefs to France, one to the regent, whose co-operation he asked in suppressing the opposition to the Bull; the other to the acceptants, whom he warned against the intrigues of the recalcitrants, and requested to exhort their erring brethren to give up their resistance. On March 1, 1717, four bishops (Soanen of Senez, de La Broue of Mirepoix, Colbert of Montpellier and Delangle of Boulogne) drew up an appeal from the Bull to a general council, thus founding the party hereafter known as the "appellants".

The directors of the plaintiffs/appellants, Persona Digital Telephony Ltd and Sigma Wireless Networks Ltd, entered into an investment agreement with Harbour Fund III, LP to provide financial backing for the plaintiffs’ legal costs and disbursements that would be incurred by the plaintiffs in the proceedings, including for the purchase of the plaintiffs’ adverse costs insurance, and to otherwise protect the assets of the plaintiffs against any adverse costs order made in or relating to any such proceedings. It was a condition of the agreement that the parties enter into a security agreement. The plaintiffs contended that the third party funding scheme should be considered in context, and that the question should be asked whether, on the whole, the transaction amounts to unlawful maintenance or champerty, or whether it should be viewed as enabling a claim of public importance to proceed and to ensure the constitutional guarantee of access to justice. The first three defendants/respondents, the State, submitted that maintenance and champerty are criminal offences as well as torts.

The case was reviewed by the European Court of Human Rights, with two individuals arguing that it amounted to a retrospective change in the criminal law, so their conviction following R v R was in breach of article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, amounting to a conviction for an act that was not a criminal offence when it was committed. The European Court of Human Rights rejected this argument in rulings in November 1995 in the cases of SW and CR v UK, SW v UK, [1995] ECHR 52 (22 November 1995); CR v UK, [1995] ECHR 51 (22 November 1995) on the grounds that R v R was a natural foreseeable evolution of law, and that even if the common law marital rape exemption existed or their victims not been their wives, then the appellants would still have been guilty of rape under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976.(1995) The Times 5 December, [1996] 1 F.L.R. 434; [1996] Fam. Law 275; (1996) 21 E.H.R.R. 363.

For the reasons stated, the Judges of Appeal allowed the appeal and indicated that they would hear the parties on the exact orders which are necessary to give effect to the relief claimed by the Appellants for the College to remain and operate on the Premises. In order to avoid further controversies, the appellate court indicated that the parties may consider it necessary to draw up a more detailed arrangement than that set out in the 1970 Agreement as to how the Premises are to be maintained and used by the parties. The parties were also requested, within the next fortnight of the judgment, to let the Court have their written submissions on the question of costs of the appeal and the trial below. For the costs order made against the Church, it paid to the College on 17 December 2014 a sum of $75,000 for the costs of the appeal and (in 2011) a sum of $188,519 for the costs and disbursements in respect of the trial below (i.e.

On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, it was alleged that the trial judge had been asleep during some parts of the trial when evidence was being given. While the Court of Criminal Appeal found that the judge "was nodding off and on occasion actually asleep from time to time during the trial", it said that this did not necessarily mean that there had been a miscarriage of justice. The Court held (by a 2:1 majority) that "there was no failure of process of such a kind as to make it impossible for the Court to decide that the convictions were just" and accordingly upheld the convictions.. The High Court granted the appellants special leave to appeal on 16 May 2008.. The appeal was heard before the Full Court on 3 September 2008 which gave orders allowing the appeals, quashing the convictions and remitting the cases for retrials. The Court indicated that it would publish its reasons at a later date.

The First Appellate Authority, after making a hearing, can accept or reject the appeal by making a written order stating the reasons for the order and intimate the same to the applicant, and can order the public servant to provide the service to the applicant. An appeal can be made from the order of the First Appellate Authority to the Second Appellate Authority, who can either accept or reject the application, by making a written order stating the reasons for the order and intimate the same to the applicant, and can order the public servant to provide the service to the applicant or can impose penalty on the designated officer for deficiency of service without any reasonable cause, which can range from Rs. 500 to Rs. 5000 or may recommend disciplinary proceedings. The applicant may be compensated out of the penalty imposed on the officer. The appellate authorities has been granted certain powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, like production of documents and issuance of summon to the Designated officers and appellants.

Lord Hughes addressed the issue the statutory impact on the admissibility of the evidence obtained through the use of an unapproved device. Mr McMahon QC for the appellants put forward that the wording of Article 61(8)(b) was clear and unambiguous; that an approved device must be used and therefore that evidence obtained through the use of an unapproved device rendered the evidence inadmissible. The issue, as Lord Hughes stated, was that there was no specific provision for the consequence of not using an approved device, as there was in other similar acts such as Section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, and similarly Article 23(1) and 4 of the Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 where specific provisions of the consequence of not using an approved device were stated. Lord Hughes in his judgment addressed the admissibility of evidence, particularly when obtained through unlawful means; the intended consequence Parliament had in mind of not using an approved device; and similar provisions (and differences in process) for other devices such as traffic speed gun and breathalyser test devices.

The New Brunswick and Canada Railway and Land Company was chartered in or prior to 1856 by Act of the New Brunswick Legislature. In that year, it took over the St. Andrews and Quebec Railway Company,"The Law Times Reports of Cases Decided in the House of Lords, the Privy Council, the Court of Appeal" vol.14 - "Wickham v NBCRLC", p.312 5 May 1866"Reports of Cases Determined in the Appeal and Chancery Divisions and Selected Cases in the King's Bench and at Chambers of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick: With Tables of the Names of Cases Decided and Names of the Cases Cited and a Digest of the Principal Matters, Volume 13 - Brookfield v NBCRLC""New Brunswick and Canada Railway and Land Company (Limited) Appellants and Conybeare et al Respondents", Tuesday 25 February 1862 which had been formed in 1836.traingeek.ca: "New Brunswick Railway History" It acquired 10,000 acres for every mile built of a railroad between Fredericton and Trois-Rivieres; in other words, 1.6 million acres in total.

The Fourth Circuit court unanimously upheld the regulation, saying that the wording in the statute was ambiguous, and that the IRS wording was a reasonable interpretation of the statute: > The plaintiffs-appellants bring this suit challenging the validity of an > Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) final rule implementing the premium tax > credit provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the > “ACA” or “Act”). The final rule interprets the ACA as authorizing the IRS to > grant tax credits to individuals who purchase health insurance on both > state-run insurance “Exchanges” and federally facilitated “Exchanges” > created and operated by the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”). > The plaintiffs contend that the IRS’s interpretation is contrary to the > language of the statute, which, they assert, authorizes tax credits only for > individuals who purchase insurance on state-run Exchanges. For reasons > explained below, we find that the applicable statutory language is ambiguous > and subject to multiple interpretations. Applying deference to the IRS’s > determination, however, we uphold the rule as a permissible exercise of the > agency’s discretion.

On March 21, 2013 the Fourth Circuit unanimously reversed the District Court opinion. The Circuit Court found that the trial court's judgment hinged on a finding that the rights of the Second Amendment extend outside one's own home, and that the right is "impermissibly burdened" by the "good and substantial cause" requirement. The Court found that, while the "good cause" requirement does indeed infringe upon Woollard's Second Amendment rights, the requirement nevertheless passes intermediate scrutiny (the standard previously determined applicable in Masciandaro and Chester, heard by the same Circuit), by holding that Maryland's desire to reduce handgun violence is a "substantial government interest", and that the "good cause" requirement is "reasonably fitted" to this interest in several ways, primarily by reducing the number of guns on the street, which the Court agreed with the Appellants provides several secondary effects that significantly reduce handgun violence and increase the ability of the police to distinguish criminals from law-abiding citizens. En banc appeal to the full Circuit Court was denied.

In a unanimous verdict by the High Court of Australia on 27 March 2008, the two provisions of the legislation, purporting to ban Western Australians from using a betting exchange and prohibiting an unauthorised business from using Western Australian race lists, were declared invalid as they applied to Betfair. The provisions were characterised as imposing a burden on interstate trade that was protectionist in nature and therefore contravened section 92 of the constitution. The Court decision suggests, but leaves open, that a more narrowly drafted ban may have been allowed (e.g., banning people in Western Australia from laying "lose bets" on events held in Western Australia).. In the 2012 High Court case of Betfair Pty Limited v Racing New South Wales, Betfair's appeal, against a newly enacted fee to access New South Welsh vital race field information, was rejected.. The Court held that the relevant law would have no discriminatory or protectionist effect on interstate trade, thereby complying with section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, and that Betfair had not proven that the fee would cause significant economic damage (not to the extent of the appellants in Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia.).

According to the SCA, the general principle encapsulated in section 4A(1) is subject to the qualification and exceptions set out in section 4A(2)(a), which empowers a court to declare any such person competent to receive a benefit under the will if it is satisfied that such a person did not defraud or unduly influence the testator. On behalf of the appellants it was argued that the qualification and exception in s 4A(2)(a) did not apply to persons who are family members of the testator. Rather, so the argument went, section 4A(2)(b), which makes provision for a person who, in terms of the law relating to intestate succession, would have been entitled to benefit from the testator if that testator had died intestate, applied. As subsection 2(b) restricted the benefit of such a beneficiary to the value of the share such a person would have received, in terms of the law relating to intestate succession, it was contended that being the spouse of the deceased the first respondent’s benefit should not exceed a child's share, being what she would have been entitled to inherit had the deceased died intestate.

The appellants claimed that the Council had violated the provisions of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina relating to non-discrimination, right to return and right to a fair hearing, as well as provisions of ECHR relating to non-discrimination and a right to a fair hearing. The majority (7-1) of the Court decided against the applicant. In its decision, among other things, the Court stated: The Court also decided that the decision of the Council for the Protection of Vital Interest of the Constitutional Court of the Republika Srpska is to be regarded as a "judgment of the court" in the meaning of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, against which an application can be made to the Constitutional Court. However, the Court decided that it did not have the jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of the Rules of Procedure on the Operations of the Constitutional Court of the Republika Srpska since the collective right of the constitutional peoples of the protection of the vital national interests is a right of political nature that is not covered by the scope of "civil rights and obligations" as understood by the Constitution or the ECHR.

On 27 March 2001, 37 representatives of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of the Federation of B&H;, as well as Edhem Bičakčić, filed an appeal against the Decision of the High Representative for B&H; to remove Edhem Bičakćić from the office of director general of "Elektroprivreda BiH" (public company for distribution of electric energy) and to prohibit him from holding any public or appointed office unless or until such time as the High Representative may expressly authorize him to hold such office. Bičakćić was removed on the grounds of criminal offenses that were allegedly committed during the performance of his duties as the Prime Minister of the Federation of B&H.; The appellants alleged that the challenged Decision of the High Representative was unconstitutional in regard to both the competence to take such a decision and the substance of the decision, particularly because it was taken, in their opinion, without applying any criteria and without applying a fair procedure for establishing the truth. Thus, the applicants asked the Court to grant the appeals and quash the decision of the High Representative.

After they demanded political asylum, the pair were put into Santa Ana Jail. On 24 March 2009, the two appellants addressed the California court themselves before Judge Rose Peters.Police close in on race hate duo, Hull Daily Mail, 28 March 2009 According to the neo-nazi website Lasha Darkmoon, the two men claimed that their actions in England were legal because they were based upon the Edict of Expulsion of 1290 when England expelled all Jews living in the country at the time, and the two said that since the edict has never been repealed (like all royal decrees, it could only be cancelled by a living king or queen of England), their anti- semitism was backed by British law and they were eligible for asylum due to being persecuted for their beliefs. On 5 April 2009, with reasons reserved, Sheppard and Whittle were denied asylum, upon which the former stated that they would not appeal, and they were deported and returned to prison in the United Kingdom on 17 June 2009."Race-hate pair rejected by US", The Jewish Chronicle, 22 April 2009.

However, the judges explained that the court had jurisdiction because the case brought up a legal issue, that of statutory interpretation (whether the 1911 Act could be used to enact the 1949 Act), rather than being examination of parliamentary proceedings. Lord Bingham noted that the bill was not enacted by both Houses of Parliament, as it was in Pickin, and that "the appellants have raised a question of law which cannot, as such, be resolved by Parliament ... so it seems to me necessary that the courts should resolve it, and that to do so involves no breach of constitutional propriety". Lord Nicholls distinguished Jackson from Pickin as a case examining the correct interpretation of the 1911 Act, an evaluation for the courts rather than Parliament; Lord Hope concurred, noting that there was no absolute prohibition on courts evaluating the validity of Acts of Parliament; and Lord Carswell agreed that the case raised "a question of law which falls within the scope of courts of law carrying out their regular function". All nine judges accepted that the court had jurisdiction to consider whether the 1949 Act was valid.

In a unanimous verdict by the High Court of Australia on 27 March 2008, the two provisions of the legislation, purporting to ban Western Australians from using a betting exchange and prohibiting an unauthorised business from using Western Australian race lists, were declared invalid as they applied to Betfair. The provisions were characterised as imposing a burden on interstate trade that was protectionist in nature, and therefore contravened section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution.. However, in the 2012 High Court case of Betfair Pty Limited v Racing New South Wales, Betfair's appeal, against a newly enacted fee to access New South Welsh vital race field information, was rejected.. The Court held that the relevant law would have no discriminatory or protectionist effect on interstate trade, thereby complying with section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, and that Betfair had not proven that the fee would cause significant economic damage (not to the extent of the appellants in Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia).. In August 2014 Betfair completed the sale of their 50% stake in Betfair Australia to venture partner Crown Resorts, one of Australia's largest gaming and entertainment groups.

McNally and Gray appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, arguing that Hunt's fraud, which they had been convicted of abetting, was not honest services fraud because he had no fiduciary duty to the people of Kentucky. The Sixth Circuit, noting Gray's fiduciary duty to the people of Kentucky as Secretary of Public Protection and Regulation, concluded that Hunt also had a fiduciary duty to the people of Kentucky as a de facto public official due to his substantial participation in governmental affairs and "de facto control" of the awarding of the insurance contract to Wombwell. The appellants also argued that their rights to due process of law were violated by the indictment, contending that it failed to allege that Hunt and Gray had a fiduciary duty to the citizens of Kentucky, a fact of which they necessarily had to be informed in order to understand the elements of the charges against them. The Sixth Circuit rejected this argument as well, stating that the indictment contained sufficient information for the defendants to be apprised of the charges, including the identification of the roles Hunt and Gray played in the conspiracy to defraud.

Justice Moody argued that the dredging of channels did indeed fall within the scope of the act. He argued that the channels were indeed “public works,” and that it was unreasonable to think that the legislators who had written the act in question had intended that men who work on a pier “should work only eight hours a day, while those who work nearby on the channel itself should be exempted from this restriction.” He acknowledged that seamen were “not laborers or mechanics” and, when working at sea, could not practicably “be brought within the limits of an eight-hour day,” but he added that when a seaman is hired to do other work, such as dredging along the coast, he is not working as a seaman but can in fact be described as a “laborer or mechanic.” Justice Moody did not find it meaningful for the purposes of the case that “the scows and dredges were vessels, or those employed upon them for some purposes are deemed seamen”; rather, what mattered was what kind of work the men were engaged in while employed by the appellants.