Sentences Generator
And
Your saved sentences

No sentences have been saved yet

89 Sentences With "bring an action"

How to use bring an action in a sentence? Find typical usage patterns (collocations)/phrases/context for "bring an action" and check conjugation/comparative form for "bring an action". Mastering all the usages of "bring an action" from sentence examples published by news publications.

type: All Declarative Interrogative Exclamative

structure: All Simple Compound Complex Compound-Complex

length: All <=10 words 10-20 words 20-30 words 30-50 words

But it is very difficult to bring an action, within a negotiation, on that basis.
"Were the attorney general to bring an action, we'll deal with it," Judge Kornreich said.
"The CFPB is more likely to pull their punches, to not bring an action," Rheingold said.
The CFTC detailed factors{here} in its decision to not bring an action against the bank.
Further, EPA has now allowed states an unprecedented say over whether to bring an action against a violator in their state.
The ECJ found that the liquidator had a conflict of interest and that Behrends could bring an action on behalf of the bank.
In a statement, it said the changes allow the CFTC or the whistleblower to bring an action against an employer for retaliation against a whistleblower.
"If you're called an independent contractor but you're sitting in a company's offices and using their computers, you're not and you can bring an action," Ms. Kotkin said.
Federal officials charged with enforcing many anti-discrimination laws could risk financial ruin if they bring an action against someone who claims that their faith requires them to discriminate.
However, the ECJ reversed the General Court's finding that a lawyer, Okko Behrends, could no longer bring an action on behalf of the bank because a liquidator had revoked his power of attorney.
DAVID FABER: --bring an action here, even though-- JOHN MALONE: But I would put it-- DAVID FABER: --most people say it goes way out there in theory in terms of-- JOHN MALONE: Yeah.
The president could, in theory, attempt to bring an action in federal court seeking to block administration witnesses, but House prosecutors would move for dismissal of any and all such suits and they would win those motions quickly.
Pass the CREATES Act, which allows a generic drug manufacturer to bring an action to federal court when brand manufacturers are engaging in delay tactics, like withholding information necessary for the generic company to bring their product to market.
"They had no ownership of the monument, they had no right under the monument law to bring an action, they had no standing," said Elizabeth Haddix, from the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law,  in a video for the News & Observer.
WHEN WE WAIT FOR AN INDUSTRY TO BRING AN ACTION ITSELF, THE RULES ARE THE INDUSTRY MUST ORGANIZE ITSELF, CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE WHOLE INDUSTRY MUST AGREE, AND THEN THEY HAVE TO DRAFT THE PAPERS, TAKE MONTHS TO SUBMIT THEM TO COMMERCE, TAKES MONTHS TO REVIEW THEM.
"If the story grows, by virtue of direct evidence that T-Mobile's motive was to influence the president and/or evidence the White House encouraged such behavior, it may increase the motive of Democratic attorneys general to bring an action against the deal," Mr. Levin said.
"Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo announced his decision to continue for two weeks, from April 18 through May 1, 2019, the current suspension with an exception of the right to bring an action under Title III of the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act," Palladino said.
Thus, in a world where individuals can collect money damages from federal officials who violate their "religious liberty," a federal employee charged with, say, enforcing laws barring discrimination against women, could wind up facing a very expensive lawsuit if they bring an action against a religious conservative who did.
If there are multiple venues, the plaintiff can choose one of them to bring an action.
If the delinquent taxes claimed are not delinquent, the taxpayer may bring an action with the IRS for a refund.Brian v. Gugin, 853 F. Supp. 358, 94-1 U.S. Tax Cas.
In Holdsworth's Case Clayt. 151, pl. 99, 1638, an attempt to bring an action in trover for the wrongful detention of chattels by a bailee failed, because the action sounded in detinue and not trover.
Therefore, if a dispute arises, the arbitration clause is not part of the contract. Instead, a UCC gap-filling provision is used. Since the Code does not supply arbitration, Brown is able to avoid Smith's term and bring an action in court.
In most cases, the essentials to bring an action of misfeasance in public office are that the office-holder acted illegally, knew they were doing so, and knew or should reasonably have known that third parties would suffer loss as a result.
The elements given above are for a tribe. The United States, acting in its capacity as a trustee, may (and has, successfully) bring an action on behalf of a tribe.United States v. Candelaria, 271 U.S. 432 (1926); Alonzo v. United States, 249 F.2d 189 (10th Cir.
The purchaser/seller requirement is the requirement that, to bring an action under 10b-5, a private plaintiff must be either a buyer or a seller of the company's stock. Potential buyers who were defrauded into not buying stock may not bring a claim under 10b-5.
Questions of interpretation may be referred to the European Court of Human Rights for an advisory opinion to be issued.Explanatory Report, para 164 Individuals are unable to bring an action on the basis of violation of the Oviedo Convention alone, but may reference the provisions in proceedings relating to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court held: the suit would not succeed as no stranger to the consideration may enforce a contract, although made for his benefit. The court ruled that a promisee cannot bring an action unless the consideration from the promise moved from him. Consideration must move from party entitled to sue upon the contract. No legal entitlement is conferred on third parties to an agreement.
My Lords, there may be occasions in which that would be a proper course to take. But I cannot think that this is a case in which any indulgence ought to be shewn to Mr. Gluckstein. He may or may not be able to recover a contribution from those who joined with him in defrauding the company. He can bring an action at law if he likes.
It could be that the owner did not have a sufficient interest to bring an action. If one person had a positive right in a thing, such as a pledgee, usufructory, or good faith possessor, both he and the owner could sue. The unsecured creditor could not. Those obliged by contract to return the thing, and other forms of "negative interest", had an action available at the expense of owner.
A stipulator in a similar case would have had no remedy. If the price was less than half the value of the thing sold, the seller might rescind the contract unless the buyer agreed to make up the deficiency. This was termed laesio enormis (or laesio ultra dimidium). If the object sold was totally unfit for the purpose intended, the buyer might bring an action for rescission - the actio redhibitoria.
Under traditional corporate business law, shareholders are the owners of a corporation. However, they are not empowered to control the day- to-day operations of the corporation. Instead, shareholders appoint directors, and the directors in turn appoint officers or executives to manage day-to-day operations. Derivative suits permit a shareholder to bring an action in the name of the corporation against parties allegedly causing harm to the corporation.
When a claimant wishes to bring an action to a Canadian court, the Court must be satisfied that it has jurisdiction over the matter. Jurisdiction in personam is determined using the real and substantial connection test. In SOCAN v. CAIP (2004), the Supreme Court of Canada applied the R&S; connection test to determine the location of a breach of copyright in the context of peer to peer downloading.
One common category of pretermitted heir is the pretermitted child, born after the writing of the will. Claims may also potentially be brought by children born outside of the decedent's marital relationship. A person who claims to be a pretermitted child of a deceased parent may bring an action in probate court to contest the parent's will. Many jurisdictions have enacted statutes that permit a pretermitted child to demand an inheritance under the will.
This is when an obligation is stated as arising on a future event which is certain to happen, for example, I will pay £10 on Wednesday. The obligation and the debt both arise from the moment of contract formation, which means that although you cannot bring an action for the £10 before Wednesday, if the £10 is paid before the end of Wednesday, a condictio could not be brought to reclaim it.
Therefore, there is no basis on which an individual can bring an action in relation to the Oviedo Convention alone. The Convention may only be referenced in conjunction with proceedings brought in respect of a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Absence of any provisions for a judicial procedure from the convention is considered to be a major weakness of the Oviedo Convention.Henriette Roscam Abbing, The Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine.
If the directors, officers, or employees of the corporation are not willing to file an action, a shareholder may first petition them to proceed. If such petition fails, the shareholder may take it upon himself to bring an action on behalf of the corporation. Any proceeds of a successful action are awarded to the corporation and not to the individual shareholders that initiate the action. In recent years, “appraisal arbitrage” has developed as a form of shareholder litigation.
In Dockwray v Dickinson , it was held that where the facts indicated a conversion of a ship and cargo that the plaintiff was entitled to interest in one- sixteenth of the value of the property. It was noted that one partner could not bring an action in trover against another partner. The plaintiff was not entitled to damages for the whole ship and cargo which was converted, but only the percentage which he owned. This was one-sixteenth.
He had the courage to bring an action against Colonel , who had personally stopped him as he was entering the House; but Parliament ordered the action to be dropped, as it was done by their order. The Army soon after obtaining the superiority, he was nominated one of the new Council of State. In April 1660 he was elected MP for Lancaster. He survived the restoration, dying on 6 January 1670, and was buried at Harrow.
Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 s.41, the seller is entitled to exercise a possessory lien over the vessel until payment by the buyer. Also, the seller is entitled to resell the vessel to another buyer if the buyer fails to settle the payment in time. An unpaid seller may bring an action to recover the sale cost where the buyer has acquired the property in the ship but refuses or fails to pay the price.
Tyler v. Tuel, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 324 (1810), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an assignee of a geographically limited patent right could not bring an action in the assignee's own name. It was the first published Supreme Court decision on patent law.Robert A. Matthews, Jr., 5 Annotated Patent Digest § 35:1, via Westlaw, retrieved 2014-12-30 ("perhaps the first published decision on a patent question by the Supreme Court").
An action under the Jones Act may be brought either in a U.S. federal court or in a state court. The right to bring an action in state court is preserved by the "savings to suitors" clause, 28 U.S.C. § 1333. The seaman-plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial, a right which is not afforded in maritime law absent a statute authorizing it. Seamen have three years from the time the accident occurred to file a lawsuit.
Parties who contest the imposition of a tax may also bring an action in any United States District Court, or in the United States Court of Federal Claims; however these venues require that the tax be paid first, and that the party then file a lawsuit to recover the contested amount paid (the "full payment rule" of Flora v. United States).357 U.S. 63 (1958), affirmed on rehearing, 362 U.S. 145 (1960). The main emblem of the tax court represents a fasces.
On September 16, 2010, The Suffolk County Legislature held a vote on a resolution (I.R. 1875) - Directing the County Attorney to bring an action against New York State regarding the MTA payroll tax. The resolution passed with strong bipartisan support with 17 votes in favor and a single vote to oppose, which was cast by Legislator Monatano. The lawsuit ultimately succeeded when Justice R. Bruce Cozzens ruled in favor of the County by declaring the New York City MTA's $1.2 payroll tax unconstitutional.
Civilly, the attorney general may bring an action under the act to obtain preliminary or permanent injunctive relief against defendant selling or offering to sell securities in New York. Violation of a Martin Act injunction is a misdemeanor, punishable by a cumulative civil penalty of $3,000 per violation. Criminally, the attorney general may assume a prosecutorial rule to punish both misdemeanors and felonies. Misdemeanors are punishable by a fine of up to $500 or imprisonment of up to one year, or both.
In order to bring an action of spuilzie against a dispossessor (ie: the person who has unlawfully acquired natural possession), two general requirements must be met: (1) The prior possessor had acquired possession (see above),NB: J. Townsend, 'Raising Lazarus: Why Spuilzie Should Be Resurrected' (2011) 2 Aberdeen Student L. Rev. 22 , 30. and (2) The prior possessor was unlawfully, also termed vitiously, dispossessed. Unlawful in this sense meaning the taking without consent, or without a court order authorising such takings.
They told him that they had seen > Hangers & men before they had seen him or his, that they was ready to answer > him any way he pleased, that they could not forget his Conduct towards Ryal, > that they on sd Ryal's Behalfe should bring an action of Damage for false > Imprisonment, that such arbitrary Tyrants & menstealers should not go > unpunished. Afterwards, J.B. Varnum helped Royal file a lawsuit against White. The court eventually ruled in Royal's favor and awarded him £100 in damages.
Birmingham, pp. 305-06 The United States Attorney then took seven months before deciding whether to proceed further. While the Assistant U.S. Attorney assigned to assess the work's obscenity felt that it was a "literary masterpiece," he also believed it to be obscene within the meaning of the law. The office therefore decided to take action against the work under the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, which allowed a district attorney to bring an action for forfeiture and destruction of imported works which were obscene.
In 1551 he bought the former lands of Whitby Abbey from his friend John Dudley, Earl of Warwick. Also in about 1551 he bought from the Duke of Suffolk the manor of Austwick and neighbouring manors. While York was imprisoned in 1553, the inhabitants of Whitby, tenants of the lands of Whitby Abbey, took advantage of his imprisonment to bring an action against him in the Court of Requests for excessive raising of their rents. On 24 October the court gave judgment against him.
18 A downstream landowner can bring an action against an upstream owner for excessively diminishing the quantity and quality of water arriving at a downstream location. Water Disputes arise in a number of contexts. When the state, local, or federal government takes private property that has water rights associated with private ownership, the value of that property is significantly affected by its water rights. And, properties located along public waters are quite common, because of the importance of public waters to commerce, the environment, and recreation.
The procedure of the common law courts had developed along highly technical and stylised lines. For example, to bring an action in the common law courts a litigant had to file a "writ" chosen from a set of standard forms. The court would only recognise certain "forms of action", and this led to the widespread use of legal fictions, with litigants disguising their claims when they did not fit into a standard recognised "form". The emphasis on rigid adherence to established forms led to substantial injustice.
On 8 June 1888 Grace and Martha Cadell, along with Elizabeth Christie and Ida Balfour stayed in the hospital after this hour to follow a patient with head injury. When Jex-Blake learned of this breach of her rules she expelled Grace and Martha Cadell from the School. Their response was to bring an action for damages against Jex-Blake and the School. The sisters claimed £500 in damages, and the court found in their favour, awarding each £50 in damages in July 1890.
Hearings began on 23 August 2017, separately from the s 44(i) cases that commenced in the High Court on the following day. The action against Gillespie was brought under s 3 of the Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act. This statute is a substitute for Constitution s 46 as authorised by that section. It provides that any person (known as a "common informer") can bring an action for a penalty against a Member of Parliament for sitting in Parliament while disqualified from doing so.
Veitchi was a specialist flooring company which was nominated as a subcontractor to lay flooring at Junior Books' factory. The floor proved defective but as there was a contract only between Junior Books and the main contractor, there was no contractual relationship whereby Junior Books could sue Veitchi, the subcontractor. Accordingly, Junior Books was obliged to bring an action in delict, arguing that Veitchi owed Junior Books a non-contractual duty of care. It was not explained why Junior Books did not sue the main contractor in contract.
By the 13th century—in England and on the continent—the gage was limited to a term of years and contained a forfeiture proviso (pactum commissorium)A Roman-Dutch legal term; Scots law has pactum legis commissoriæ (in pignoribus). providing that if after the term the debt was not repaid, title was forfeited to the lender, i.e., the term of years would expand automatically into a fee simple. This is known as a shifting fee and was sufficient after 1199 to entitle the gagee to bring an action for recovery.
900 In terms of relief, Gordon and Omni sought only statutory damages, as opposed to damages based on actual harm. The District Court dismissed Gordon and Omni's Washington Prize Statute claims due to pleading deficiencies. Virtumundo then moved for summary judgment on Gordon and Omni's remaining CAN-SPAM Act, Washington CEMA, and Washington CPA claims. The District Court ruled in favor of Virtumundo, holding that Gordon and Omni lacked standing to bring an action under the CAN-SPAM Act and that the federal CAN-SPAM Act preempted their CEMA and CPA claims.
The liquidator will normally have a duty to ascertain whether any misconduct has been conducted by those in control of the company which has caused prejudice to the general body of creditors. In some legal systems, in appropriate cases, the liquidator may be able to bring an action against errant directors or shadow directors for either wrongful trading or fraudulent trading. The liquidator may also have to determine whether any payments made by the company or transactions entered into may be voidable as a transaction at an undervalue or an unfair preference.
This definition can be seen as a more inclusive definition of ecosystems because it explicitly includes the social, cultural and economic dimensions of human communities. The law also establishes the juridical character of Mother Earth as "collective subject of public interest", to ensure the exercise and protection of her rights. By giving Mother Earth a legal personality, it can, through its representatives (humans), bring an action to defend its rights. Additionally, to say that Mother Earth is of public interest represents a major shift from an anthropocentric perspective to a more Earth community based perspective.
A claim may be made against another person or government agency, with these claims being brought by The Office of Human Rights Proceedings, a complainant or any other aggrieved party. Proceedings may be bought by the Director of Human Rights Proceedings. When making a decision on representation, the Director must consider certain factors including whether the complaint raises a significant question of law and whether or not providing representation would be in the public interest. Should the Director choose not to proceed then a complainant may bring an action but at their own cost.
The judgment of the House of Lords concentrated on two aspects of private nuisance. The first issue was who could be seen to have a legitimate right in land, a requirement to sue in nuisance. The Lords rejected the interim case of Khorasandjian v Bush,Khorasandjian v Bush [1993] QB 727 where it had been found that no proprietary interest in a property was required to bring an action. In doing so, they upheld the findings of Malone v Laskey,[1907] 2 KB 141 establishing again that only householders with a right to a property could commence actions in nuisance.
A case from 1200 directed the verdict against a bailee who claimed chattels in his keeping were stolen during a fire at his property. In the opinion of Bracton, if goods were unlawfully taken from the possession of the bailee, it was he who had the action against the wrongdoer, not the original bailor. The action was appeal of larceny or trespass.Bracton f. 151Pollock and Maitland, vol ii, p. 170 "History of English Law", Cambridge, 1968 Even in the time of Bracton, there was pressure to change this arrangement and allow the bailor to bring an action directly against the third party.
The judge ruled that the statute did not extend beyond "race" and the employment discrimination suit was dismissed because he was therefore not part of a protected class. In the District of Columbia, Kurylas v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, a Polish American bringing suit over equal opportunity employment was told by the court that his case was invalid, as "only nonwhites have standing to bring an action". Poles were also snubbed by the destruction of their Poletown East, Detroit, community in 1981, when eminent domain by corporations triumphed against them in court and displaced their historic town.
Where the beneficiary is issued a demand guarantee by a bank in his own locality, the guarantee aims "to shifting of risks and the cost of bearing them from [the beneficiary to the account party]".Dolan, ‘Standby Letters of Credit and Fraud (Is The Standby Only Another Invention of the Goldsmiths in Lombard Street?) (1985) 7 Cardozo L.R., p. 5 Should the beneficiary find the contractor in default, he can immediately seek compensation by demanding on the guarantee and it is the account party who is forced to bring an action to recover any disputed amount.
The doctrine was later extended to situations where the state is seeking to execute a civil fine against someone, or has jailed a person for contempt of court. The doctrine applies even where the state does not bring an action until after the person has filed a lawsuit in federal court, provided that the federal court has not yet taken any action on the suit. Moreover, the principle of abstention applies to some state administrative proceedings. In regard to the exceptions which the Younger Court articulated, later decisions make it clear that these are highly difficult to meet.
The latter is the forfeit usually named in the contract for his repudiation of her. If the husband could show that his wife had been a bad wife, the Code allowed him to send her away, while he kept the children as well as her dowry; or he could degrade her to the position of a slave in his own house, where she would have food and clothing. The wife might bring an action against her husband for cruelty and neglect and, if she proved her case, obtain a judicial separation, taking her dowry with her. No other punishment fell on the man.
Bouligny had a $334,300 contract with Blue Ridge to construct 24 miles of new power lines, the reconversion to higher capacities of about 88 miles of existing lines, and the construction of two new substations and a breaker station. Byrd touched a live wire and suffered injuries while connecting power lines to one of the new substations. He brought a claim against his employer, Bouligny, and collected workmen's compensation, his guaranteed but only remedy for work-related injuries under state law. Byrd then proceeded to bring an action in diversity against Blue Ridge in the District Court for the Western District of South Carolina.
Patridge, 12 Me. 243 A transferee of personal property, or interest therein, who acquires the right of possession by or through the transfer, may maintain an action for a conversion committed after the transfer, though he has not yet received actual possession of the goods.44 A.L.R. 435 A creditor, having no interest, generally may not be a plaintiff in an action to retrieve a debtor's converted property.Quaker Oats Co. v. McKibben, An owner of land may bring an action in conversion, but he must be in material possession of the land and of the property severed from the land at the time of the conversion.
Markham shocked her high society contemporaries by embarking on an affair with Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, the third son of the reigning King-Emperor, George V. The affair continued, in England, into the following year and Markham decided to bring an action for divorce. He indicated he would name the Prince in the proceedings, at which point Queen Mary intervened to grant Beryl a small annual income, to help her to travel and so enable the affair to cool off. After Beryl's successful Atlantic crossing, she began a new affair with Hubert Broad, and Markham filed for divorce. It was Broad who was named in the divorce proceedings.
It seems likely that the court took the decision under the influence of French judge Robert Lecourt, who had been appointed to the court in May 1962. Lecourt's speeches and writings repeatedly connect the direct effect doctrine with the suppression of inter-state retaliation and unilateral safeguard mechanisms within the European Economic Community.William Phelan, Great Judgments of the European Court of Justice: Rethinking the Landmark Decisions of the Foundational Period (Cambridge, 2019) The case illustrates a procedure of enforcement of EC law at the national leveldirect effect does not require the commission to bring an action against the state. This is significant because it provides a more effective distributed enforcement mechanism.
Justice McLachlin, writing for the majority, held that the labour arbitrator had jurisdiction to grant the remedies and consequently, Weber could not bring an action in court. McLachlin looked at the wording of the Ontario Labour Relations Act which gave the arbitrator exclusive authority to adjudicate over "all differences between the parties arising from the interpretation, application, administration or alleged violation of the agreement". She held that this meant that the arbitrator had jurisdiction over the subject matter which meant that the arbitrator necessarily had authority over remedies as well. Consequently, the arbitrator was a "court of competent jurisdiction" and had authority over Weber's claims.
Vail, 430 U.S. 327 (1977) The doctrine applies even where the state does not bring an action until after the person has filed a lawsuit in federal court, provided that the federal court has not yet undergone proceedings of substance on the merits of the federal suit.Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 45 L.Ed.2d 223, 95 S.Ct. 2281 (1975) There are three exceptions to Younger abstention: # Where the prosecution is in bad faith (i.e. the state knows the person to be innocent); or # Where the prosecution is part of some pattern of harassment against an individual; or # Where the law being enforced is utterly and irredeemably unconstitutional (e.g.
This statute allows local prosecutors or the Attorney General to press charges against people who knowingly use deceptive business practices in a consumer transaction and authorizes consumers to hire a private attorney to bring an action seeking their actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees. Also, the majority of states have a Department of Consumer Affairs devoted to regulating certain industries and protecting consumers who use goods and services from those industries. For example, in California, the California Department of Consumer Affairs regulates about 2.3 million professionals in over 230 different professions, through its forty regulatory entities. In addition, California encourages its consumers to act as private attorneys general through the liberal provisions of its Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
Finally, consumers may seek redress in the courts for alleged violations of the Magnuson–Moss Act. A consumer who has been injured by a supplier's noncompliance may bring an action in federal court if the amount in controversy is over $50,000 or a class action if the number of class plaintiffs is greater than 100. If the jurisdictional amount, or number of plaintiffs, does not meet these thresholds, an action under the act may be brought only in state court.See 15 U.S.C. 2310(d)(1)-(3) Moreover, one of the key aids to the effectiveness of the act is that a prevailing plaintiff may recover reasonable costs of suit, including attorney fees.
The defendant(Italian Republic) questioned the admissibility of the application. It submitted that the Commission disregarded the obligationimposed upon the Community institutions under Article 2, that is to 'promote throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities'. It supposedly did that by bringing the matter before the Court at a time when the Italian Parliament was on the point of being dissolved and therefore could not pass the draft law which would amend the provision in dispute. The Court ruled that the action of the Commission was admissible, because according to the Article 169 of the EEC Treaty, it is for the Commission to judge at what time it decides to bring an action before the Court.
The Human Rights Act 1998 seeks to give direct effect to the European Convention on Human Rights in domestic law by enabling claimants to bring an action in national courts instead of having to take their case before the European Court of Human Rights, as had previously been the case. The Act makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a manner contrary to certain rights prescribed by the Convention and allows a UK court to award a remedy in the event of a breach. In principle, the Act has vertical effect in that it operates only vis-à-vis public bodies and not private parties. There are however certain situations in which the Act can be indirectly invoked against a private person.
2-Year Right of Rescission - Generally, a violation of the contractual requirements or any of the prohibited acts in Subdivision 7 makes the conveyance voidable and may be rescinded within 2 years of the date the deed was recorded. The statute then gives the equity purchaser (or its successor) twenty days to reconvey the property on the condition of repayment of any consideration paid to the equity seller. HEPTA does not affect the rights of a bona-fide purchaser or encumbrancer for value if their conveyance occurred before the recording of the notice of rescission. 6-Year Statute of Limitations - Within 6 years, an equity seller may bring an action for the recovery of damages or equitable relief against an equity purchaser for a violation of HEPTA.
A class action was formed representing female welfare recipients residing in Connecticut and wishing divorces, but prevented from bringing divorce suits by Connecticut statutes requiring payment of court fees and costs for service of process as a condition precedent to access to the courts. There was no dispute as to their inability to pay the court fees or costs. Plaintiffs sought a judgment declaring the statutes (requirements for payment of court fees and costs for service of process that restricted their access to the courts in an effort to bring an action for divorce) invalid as applied to the class, and an injunction requiring defendants to permit members of the class to sue for divorce without payment of any fees and costs.
Part of the story is told with extracts from his diary, where we see how skewed his point of view is. He describes the ship sailing in perpetual storm (though the weather is fine), and portrays the others as foolishly denying the supposed rough seas and refusing to face the "truth" of the situation. He complains when Lucy is given Caspian's cabin, and comments to the crew that giving girls special treatment is actually "putting them down, and making them weaker". Moreover, he cannot accept that he is in the Narnian world: he imagines that he can "lodge a disposition" (or "bring an action") at a British consulate or a British court; and he is beaten by Reepicheep for treating the mouse as one might a circus animal.
Instead, a resident may bring an action for a declaratory judgment alleging that the ordinance is void because it was not properly noticed, goes beyond the county charter, is arbitrary, discriminatory, or unreasonably vague, or that it is preempted by state or federal law. An ordinance will be deemed preempted if it addresses an activity for which the state has prohibited local regulation altogether, or where it is inconsistent with state law. An ordinance may not permit an activity that is expressly prohibited by state law, or prohibits an activity that is expressly permitted by state law. However, if some state regulation exists as to an activity, political subdivisions may impose further regulations on that activity so long as it is possible for a resident to comply with both sets of regulations.
The act contains an intergovernmental and private-sector mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) because it ends rights of action for public and private entities that are currently able to pursue legal actions related to the land held in trust for the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians. The act prohibits any action relating to the trust land from being brought or maintained in a federal court. The cost of the mandate would be any forgone compensation that would have been awarded through legal actions. The state of Michigan and several local governments have entered into an agreement with the tribe related to the use of the land, and CBO believes it is unlikely that, without the act, any other public entity would bring an action that would result in significant compensation.
In some jurisdictions, a person who has successfully obtained title to property by adverse possession may (optionally) bring an action in land court to "quiet title" of record in their name on some or all of the former owner's property. Such action will make it simpler to convey the interest to others in a definitive manner, and also serves as notice that there is a new owner of record, which may be a prerequisite to benefits such as equity loans or judicial standing as an abutter. Even if such action is not taken, the title is legally considered to belong to the new titleholder, with most of the benefits and duties, including paying property taxes to avoid losing title to the tax collector. The effects of having a stranger to the title paying taxes on property may vary from one jurisdiction to another.
In civil procedure systems (such as in the United States) that allow plaintiffs to plead multiple alternative theories that may overlap or even contradict each other, a plaintiff will usually bring an action for both intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED). This is just in case the plaintiff later discovers that it is impossible to prove at trial the necessary mens rea of intent; even then, the jury may still be able to rule for them on the NIED claim. There are some reported cases in which a plaintiff will bring only a NIED claim even though a reasonable neutral observer could conclude that the defendant's behavior was probably intentional. This is usually because the defendant may have some kind of insurance coverage (like homeowners' insurance or automobile liability insurance).
The government could demand repayment of such amounts or it can waive repayment. In Re Culleton (No 2) (2017), for example, the government demanded repayment from Rod Culleton, after he was found to have been ineligible, as "a debt to the commonwealth", and indicated it might also seek repayment of superannuation payments, other entitlements and staff payments. There is also possibility of an action being brought under s 3 of the Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act 1975, which provides that any person can bring an action for a penalty against a member of parliament for sitting in Parliament while disqualified from doing so. The government had undertaken to pay the legal costs of all parties and of Tony Windsor (intervening in the Joyce case).Transcript (at end): The final legal bill paid by the government was $11.6 million.
In 2010, he represented politician Jose Coye in an unsuccessful malicious prosecution lawsuit against businessman Alfred Schakron. In 2011, Kaseke defended American investor Allen Saum against charges of tampering with a legal document in a dispute with two local business partners, one of them Kimano Barrow (the nephew of PM Dean Barrow). Later that year he represented the Football Federation of Belize in its judicial review application against Minister of Sports John Saldivar, who was attempting to decertify it and ban it from using National Sports Council facilities under the Sports Act (Cap. 46). He appeared before the Caribbean Court of Justice in the first Belizean case it heard, unsuccessfully arguing that the government of Belize should not be permitted to bring an action for misfeasance against his clients Florencio Marin and Jose Coye regarding alleged wrongful sales of government land.
To comply with the provisions of EMTALA, hospitals, through their ED physicians, must provide a medical screening and stabilize the emergency medical conditions of anyone that presents themselves at a hospital ED with patient capacity. If these services are not provided, EMTALA holds both the hospital and the responsible ED physician liable for civil penalties of up to $50,000 each. While both the Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (OIG) and private citizens can bring an action under EMTALA, courts have uniformly held that ED physicians can only be held liable if the case is prosecuted by OIG (whereas hospitals are subject to penalties regardless of who brings the suit). Additionally, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) can discontinue provider status under Medicare for physicians that do not comply with EMTALA.
Under the law as stated by the aediles, property could be returned for vitium, a fault or defect; but Vivianus gives the example of a slave who formerly behaved as if under some religious hysteria, but no longer did so. In this case, he explained, there was no longer any vitium, and a purchaser could no more bring an action against the seller for sale of defective goods than if the slave had been sick, but since recovered. If, on the other hand, the slave persisted in his fanatical behaviour, then a vitium could still be said to exist; but Vivianus still concluded that the purchaser would have no action, because the aediles only intended for an action to be brought in the case of physical defects, and not mental ones.Digesta, 21. tit. 1. s. 1.
Gina Miller and other claimants had sought permission to bring an action in the High Court for judicial review on whether the UK government was entitled to notify an intention to leave the European Union under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), as amended (the Maastricht and Lisbon Treaties), without a vote or deliberative debate in Parliament. David Davis, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, argued that the possibility to trigger Article 50 was based on the royal prerogative and so any consultation of elected members of parliament was unnecessary. Miller contended that, if notification under Article 50 were to be invoked to leave the European Union, it would effectively nullify a series of Acts of Parliament. It was a constitutional principle that Acts of Parliament could not be changed without the consent of Parliament.
Windeyer J noted that no one could bring an action for negligence based on anything done in the course of war operations, but that members of the armed services are liable to civilians injured by negligent acts during peacetime. Because Parker was a civilian the Australian Government was liable. Windeyer J however made the following obiter dicta observation: > ... as I see the matter at present, the law does not enable a serving member > of any of Her Majesty's forces to recover damages from a fellow member > because acts done by him in the course of his duty were negligently done. Despite this case however, the Australian Government adopted a policy that when sued by a member of the military it would not challenge whether a member of the military could sue for damage caused by the negligence of another member of the military.
This led the Privy Council to agree that a director of an Isle of Mann company was dishonest, because, even though he did not know for sure, he was found at trial to have suspected that money passing through his hands was from a securities fraud scheme by Barlow Clowes. The result is that, because liability is based on objective fault, more defendants will be caught. If a claimant does bring an action for dishonest assistance, or liability for receipt, Tang Man Sit v Capacious Investments Ltd[1996] AC 514 affirmed the principle that the claimant may not be overcompensated by suing for the same thing twice. So, Capacious Investments Ltd could make a claim against the late Mr Tang Man Sit's personal representative for renting out its properties, and it could ask the court to assess the amounts of both (1) loss of profits, and (2) loss of use and occupation, but then it could only claim one.
This summary is based largely on the summary provided by the Congressional Research Service, a public domain source. The Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act of 2013 would prohibit discharging or in any other manner discriminating against a whistleblower in terms and conditions of employment because: (1) the whistleblower provided information to the employer or the federal government concerning a violation of antitrust law or another criminal law committed in conjunction with a potential violation of antitrust law; or (2) the whistleblower participated in, or otherwise assisted, an investigation relating to such a violation. The bill would allow a whistleblower who alleges discharge or other discrimination to seek relief: (1) by filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor; or (2) if the Secretary has not issued a final decision within 180 days of filing such complaint, to bring an action at law or equity. The bill would entitle a whistleblower who prevails in any such action to all relief necessary to make such whistleblower whole.

No results under this filter, show 89 sentences.

Copyright © 2024 RandomSentenceGen.com All rights reserved.