78 Sentences With "severable" | Random Sentence Generator

It is now legislatively "severable" from regionalization, in the lingo.

And as I say, those are not quite severable questions.

The FOMB has failed to consider that PROMESA requires a contextual reading of that Act, stating that "subchapter III is not severable from subchapters I and II, and subchapters I and II are not severable from subchapter III".

Most legal experts argue the mandate is severable, but Judge O'Connor ruled it is not.

"My concern is all of these agreements are severable, and possession is nine-tenths of law," he said.

That should be a pretty clear sign that Congress considers it to be severable, the ACA's allies argue.

There was a second possibility they talked about, which is that they could decide that it's partially severable.

But intersectional organizing always makes us stronger, because "divide and conquer" tactics notwithstanding, our issues have never actually been severable.

They have two choices: they could say that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and it is severable from the entire law.

In Kalm's video, though there are severable visible streaks of smeared paint around the gallery, the paintings themselves are not visibly damaged.

Simply make the mandate formally repealed and/or make the clause severable from the rest of the legislation and the whole strategy collapses.

But the administration maintained those parts of the law were severable and the rest of the Affordable Care Act could remain in place.

O'Connor also held that the rest of the Affordable Care Act was not "severable" from the individual mandate, essentially scrapping the whole law.

"It may still be that none of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate, even after this inquiry is concluded," Elrod writes.

The Democratic attorneys general defending the ACA in this case will argue that Congress severed the two provisions, so Congress clearly saw them as severable.

"It may still be that none of the A.C.A. is severable from the individual mandate, even after this inquiry is concluded," the two judges in the majority wrote.

It is a big jump, but the question of the proper scope and actual competence of government are not severable questions, and they are largely informed by human experience.

Democratic AGs who won the right to defend ObamaCare in court (because the Trump administration declined to) argued the individual mandate is severable from the rest of the law.

It also argues that the other key provisions — guaranteed coverage for preexisting conditions and community-rating provisions — are not "severable" from the individual mandate and must also be struck down.

And [Judge Elrod] was suggesting if that was the decision, then it needs to go back down to Judge O'Connor to determine which provisions were severable and which were not.

If they decided on the substance, then there's either a decision that the individual mandate is still constitutional ... or that it's unconstitutional and it's severable from the rest of the law.

In contrast, the Trump administration took a softer approach, suggesting that the bulk of the colossal piece of legislation was "severable," or able to stand even if the individual mandate provisions were struck.

And she was implying it should be sent back down to Judge O'Connor to determine what is severable and is not, so that's another possibility of what could come out of the case.

Under this doctrine, when the court finds that a portion of a statute is unconstitutional, it goes on to decide whether that portion is severable from the remainder of the law or whether the entire statute has to fall.

By arguing that those provisions are not severable from the individual mandate, the Justice Department is arguing that the entirety of that core of the law — outside of Medicaid expansion, which would remain unaffected — should be struck down by the court.

For instance, Congress could nullify the basis of the judge's decision by raising the penalty amount or declaring the individual mandate severable from the rest of the law, University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley and Richard Primus argued in The Atlantic last month.

"If the Fifth Circuit upholds the entire decision from below — that the mandate is unconstitutional and not severable — it would invalidate the entire ACA, and the Supreme Court will be forced to take up the case," University of Pennsylvania health law professor Allison Hoffman told Vox.

House Republicans, including Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and two dozen House Financial Services Committee members, argued in a brief that the removal restriction is not severable from the rest of that section of Dodd-Frank and that the court should "invalidate the statutory powers" of the CFPB and send the issue back to Congress.

If this court decides the individual mandate is still constitutional, that it could still be read as a tax, or they decide that the [individual mandate is constitutional, but severable from the rest of the law], then their word could be the final word on this case, maybe the Supreme Court doesn't take the case.

Watching Warren's announcement video, you can see her priorities are clear: she wants economic and racial justice and recognizes that the two are neither identical nor severable (unlike too many others on the populist left who believe class is a singular unifying force and racism is a secondary "identity politics" issue solvable by economic changes alone).

Much of the Court, however, expressed skepticism that Grokster's continuing enterprise could be severable from the consequences of those prior acts.

The court then determined that the arbitration clause was not severable from the rest of the contract, rendering the entire agreement void.

If specific activities involving exercise of official authority are severable from the rest of a profession, then Article 51 cannot apply to exempt the whole lot.

In contract law, a severable contract is a contract that is actually composed of several separate contracts concluded between the same parties, so that failing (breaching) one part of such a 'severable' contract does not breach the whole contract. Therefore, the other party must still honor the other subparts and cannot cancel the whole agreement. A severable contract generally must contain a "severability clause" that allows certain clauses and aspects of the contract to be "severed" without affecting the validity of the rest of the contract. For example, if Mr. X purchases a computer, a scanner, a printer and a desk from a retailer, and the retailer cannot deliver the printer, the other parts of the contract (the computer, the scanner and the desk) are still valid and must be honored.

The landlord argued that there was no realization of the property because no transaction had occurred, and because the improvement of the property that created the gain was not "severable" from the landlord's original capital.

The county found that while parts of law are invalid, they are nonetheless severable, rendering the remainder of the law constitutional if interpreted in a restrictive manner. The New York Court of Appeals granted the defendant leave to appeal.

Former GlobeTel employee Luis Vargas to pay a $150,000 penalty and $675,000 in disgorgement plus prejudgment interest (joint-and- severable with Joseph J. Monterosso) and Vargas barred from serving as an officer or director of a public company for 10 years.

The Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit's decision in that the 2015 amendment, in that its exception for the government-debt clause violated the First Amendment, and because the amendment was severable from the rest of the TCPA, invalidated only that portion of the law.

The financing deal was unique in several aspects, including the fact that it included a construction mezzanine loan, that Coach was a lender on both the debt and equity sides, and that the MTA helped create the "severable lease" structure that allowed for the loans.

Griffith CJ held that the entire Act was valid and so upheld the validity of the award. His Honour however agreed with Barton J that the Act was not severable and that if the enforcement powers were invalid, as found by the majority, then the entire Act was invalid.

Such coercion would be counter to the federalist structure of government in which a "core of state sovereignty" is enshrined in the Tenth Amendment. The Court found the "take title" provision to be severable and, noting the seriousness of the "pressing national problem" being addressed, allowed the remainder of the Act to survive.

In this, the Ninth Circuit determined that the 2015 amendment did add content-based exemptions for free speech and thus was unconstitutional, but was also severable from the rest of the TCPA, leaving in place the autodialer statute. As such, the Circuit Court ruled in favor of Duguid and that Facebook had violated the autodialer statute of the TCPA.

If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the Constitution of the United States, this section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the Constitution of the United States permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.

If there are uncertain or incomplete clauses in the contract, and all options in resolving its true meaning have failed, it may be possible to sever and void just those affected clauses if the contract includes a severability clause. The test of whether a clause is severable is an objective test—whether a reasonable person would see the contract standing even without the clause.

The House and Senate, as amici curiae, argued that the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that the resolution of the House of Representatives vetoing the Attorney General's determination was constitutionally invalid. It asked the United States Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit's decision. Congress argued that: (1) Chadha lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of § 244(c)(2) because that section is not severable from § 244(a)(1).

The Fourth agreed in the District Court's concept that there was a rational to apply the strict scrutiny test for the government-debt speech exemption, but ruled that the District Court's application of the test was incorrect, given the nature of the TCPA was meant to be prohibitive. The Fourth Circuit also found that the amendment was severable from the original TCPA law, and thus invalidated the new amendment.

With a majority of justices agreed that the debt- collection amendment was unconstitutional, the question arose whether the amendment could be severed from the rest of the TCPA, or whether the whole law was invalid. The Court ruled 7–2 that the amendment was severable. Seven justices followed Kavanaugh's severability analysis, and would preserve most of the TCPA. Kavanaugh's opinion noted that the TCPA has an express severability clause.

Denning LJ held the engineer simply put together his know how of the profession and had not betrayed any mystery of the firm’s business or disclosed trade secrets. His contract was mixed, partly of and partly for services outside the contract. His lecture work was not covered by the Act, but the material acquired while on assignment did fall within the Act. The publishers should be restrained from printing that section, which was severable.

She also ordered him to disgorge the full $1.5 million that he received when he exercised stock options in the midst of the fraud. Former GlobeTel chief financial officer Lawrence Lynch to pay a $780,000 civil penalty. Former GlobeTel former executive Joseph J. Monterosso to pay a $300,000 penalty and $675,000 in disgorgement plus prejudgment interest (joint-and-severable with Luis Vargas) and Monterosso barred from serving as an officer or director of a public company for 10 years.

The financing deal was unique in several aspects, including the fact that it included a construction mezzanine loan, that Coach was a lender on both the debt and equity sides, and that the MTA reused a "severable lease" structure (previously used by Battery Park City) that allowed for the loans. A portion of the project was also financed by the EB-5 investment program, which uses capital from immigrants who become eligible for a green card.

2415 HRLJ (1994) 464, at 467 that it could. In this case the committee stated that > the normal consequence of an unacceptable reservations is not that the > covenant will not be in effect at all for a reserving party. Rather such a > reservation will be generally be severable, in the sense that the covenant > will be operative for the reserving party without benefit of the > reservation. As in Belilos, the result is that the committee chose the second option.

Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. ____ (2020) was a U.S. Supreme Court case which determined that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), with a single director who could only be removed from office "for cause", violates the separation of powers. The Court's 5–4 decision, issued on June 29, 2020, recognized that the directorship position was severable from the statute that established the CFPB, allowing the CFPB to continue to operate.

Subsequent legal actions were concerned with what should be counted as "income" under the 1913 Act. In Eisner v. Macomber (1920), the Supreme Court ruled that proportionate stock dividends were not taxable as income, on the grounds that the dividend income was not "severable" from the capital holding from which it was derived. Later decisions, however, have tended to limit this view of "severability," and to uphold the federal statutes as exertions of the power of Congress to tax.

When it was discovered that the judgment was not final, the writ of certiorari was dismissed as improvidently granted. The case was then remanded back to the state supreme court, which framed the question on appeal as whether the arbitration clause was severable from the rest of the contract. The state supreme court followed the judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Paramount Famous Lasky Corporation, , which held that a similar contract was illegal in its entirety.

On May 16, 1994, United States District Judge Charles C. Lovell granted the Sheriff declaratory judgment, finding that the provision requiring CLEOs to perform background checks violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but also concluding that provision was severable from the remainder of the Act, effectively leaving a voluntary background check system in place.Printz v. United States, 854 F. Supp. 1503 (D. Mont. 1994). On June 29, 1994, United States District Judge John Roll reached the same conclusion.

Commissioner, 6 B.T.A. 1023 (1927), at . Thus, even though the payment was "severable" and lead to a demonstrable increase in net wealth, the Board nonetheless concluded that the payment was not income. Other commentators noted that if "severability" were to be considered a touchstone for the definition of income, it followed that a number of sales or exchanges of property that did not involve immediate realization through severance would not be taxable.Joseph T Sneed, "The Configurations of Gross Income," p. 71 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press 1967).

The government petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case, which the Supreme Court certified in January 2020. Oral arguments were heard on May 6, 2020, part of the block of cases that were held via teleconference due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Oral arguments focused on how the strict scrutiny tests should apply to the 2015 amendment, and whether that amendment was severable from the entire TCPA, questions that had been brought up from the Fourth Circuit's decision. The Supreme Court issued its ruling on July 6, 2020.

The essence of the argument submitted was that the charges are remuneration for the service provided by the bank (supplying a bank account) and so these particular contractual terms are not severable from the contract as a whole. This argument was rejected by the High Court.[2008] All ER (D) 349 (Apr), para 450. The practical impact of this case is that customers can begin or continue claims against their banks and the lower courts will follow Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National plc and Others and assess the fairness of the clauses.

The Constitution Bench in its majority judgement upheld the validity of the Tenth Schedule, but declared Paragraph 7 of the Schedule invalid because it was not ratified by the required number of the Legislatures of the States as it brought about in terms and effect, a change in articles 136, 226 and 227 of the Constitution. While doing so, the majority treated Paragraph 7 as a severable part from the rest of the Schedule. However, in the dissenting opinion, the minority of the Judges held that the entire Amendment is invalid for want of ratification.

An assignment clause either expressly prohibits or permits transfers of rights or obligations under the contract to a third party to the contract. An example: Neither this Agreement nor any of the rights, interests or obligations under the Agreement shall be assigned, in whole or in part, by operation of law or otherwise by either party without the prior written consent of the other party. A transfer may be prohibited or permitted entirely or in part. Where a contract contains separate and severable obligations, only part of the contract may be transferred.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment. In an opinion by Chief Justice Burger, the Court held that the resolution of the House of Representatives vetoing the Attorney General's determination was constitutionally invalid, unenforceable, and not binding. Congress may not promulgate a statute granting to itself a legislative veto over actions of the executive branch inconsistent with the bicameralism principle and Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court rebutted Congress's assertions as follows: (1) § 244(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is severable from the rest of the act pursuant to the express severability clause § 406.

The court held for the government: under the Revenue Act of 1932, the value of the improvements was realized by the taxpayer as income in the year in which the forfeiture occurred. The improvements, the Court observed, were received by the taxpayer "as a result of a business transaction," namely, the leasing of the taxpayer's land. It was not necessary to the recognition of gain that the improvements be severable from the land. All that had to be shown was that the taxpayer had acquired valuable assets from his lease in exchange for the use of his property.

If there is no express choice, Article 4 provides that the contract shall be governed by the law of the country with which it is most closely connected. If the agreement is severable, two applicable laws may be selected. For these purposes, it is presumed that the contract is most closely connected with the lex loci solutionis, i.e. the law of the place where the contract is to be performed, or the law of the habitual residence of the person who is to perform, or, in the case of a body corporate or unincorporate, where its central administration is located.

The questions to be resolved in "(i) Is Section 6 of the Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899 (WA) invalid? (ii) Are Sections 2A(2), 6 and 9 of the Electoral Distribution Act 1947 (WA), or any of them, invalid? (iii) If any of the Sections 2A(2), 6 or 9 of the Electoral Distribution Act 1947 (WA) is or are invalid, is it or are they severable and, if so, to what extent?" The Plaintiffs argument rested on two primary grounds; Representative democracy requires, # That every person with capacity have the right to vote; and # That each vote should be equal in importance.

On January 31, 2011, Judge Roger Vinson in Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services declared the law unconstitutional in an action brought by 26 states, on the grounds that the individual mandate to purchase insurance exceeds the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Vinson further ruled the clause was not severable, which had the effect of striking down the entire law. On August 12, 2011, a divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Vinson's decision in part: the court agreed that the mandate was unconstitutional, but held that it could be severed, allowing the rest of the ACA to remain.

The United States contended that hard labor was not in and of itself an infamous punishment, and that time in a penitentiary was a necessity. Second, because the Act gave the option of either a fine, imprisonment, or both, the United States maintained that the Act was not unconstitutional because the threat of imprisonment was severable from the threat of fine (which would not be infamous). Because the court could decide to impose only a fine, the United States argued the Act as a whole should not be struck down. Third, the United States in its arguments attacked the legality of Wong Wing v.

However, the Justice Department still believed certain provisions of the ACA were valid. On December 14, 2018, District Judge Reed O'Connor released his opinion on the case, affirming that without the individual mandate, the whole of the ACA was unconstitutional, going farther than the Justice Department had even indicated. O'Connor wrote "Individual Mandate can no longer be fairly read as an exercise of Congress's Tax Power and is still impermissible under the Interstate Commerce Clause—meaning the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional." He then further reasoned that the individual mandate is an essential part of the entire law, and thus was not severable, making the entire law unconstitutional.

However, if the defendant attempted an acquittal by going to trial, he would be risking his life if the jury found him guilty. The majority found that the "inevitable effect of any such provision is, of course, to discourage assertion of the Fifth Amendment right not to plead guilty and to deter exercise of the Sixth Amendment right to demand a jury trial." However, the majority disagreed with the District Court’s assertion that the Federal Kidnapping Act fails entirely because its penalty clause is deficient. The court determined that the part of the Act which details punishment is severable from the rest of the act.

Eventually these came to over $1,000, and with the help of an activist lawyers' group, Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (TLPJ), he filed a class action alleging that the fees he was charged were effectively interest payments at a 1,300% annual rate, well over Florida's legal limit of 45%. The class would eventually be certified to include all the store's customers prior to September 30, 2001, reflecting a change in Florida law which allowed the fees. The company moved to have the case dismissed and compel arbitration. When that was denied, it petitioned the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal which ruled that arbitration was required because the entire contract had been challenged, not the severable arbitration clause.

The result of a value calculation under the income approach is generally the fair market value of a controlling, marketable interest in the subject company, since the entire benefit stream of the subject company is most often valued, and the capitalization and discount rates are derived from statistics concerning public companies. IRS Revenue Ruling 59-60 states that earnings are preeminent for the valuation of closely held operating companies. However, income valuation methods can also be used to establish the value of a severable business asset as long as an income stream can be attributed to it. An example is licensable intellectual property whose value needs to be established to arrive at a supportable royalty structure.

Hinkle acknowledged the "overwhelming majority" of felons would be found unable to pay under these categories. He also ordered the state to make the related changes to the state voter registration form and create a process where a felon could formally request an advisory opinion on how much they owe and election officials would have to respond within three weeks or the felon would be allowed to register to vote by default. In the case of a loss on the constitutional claims, the state had made two main secondary arguments at trial. The state argued that if the ballot initiative's language requiring all felons to complete their sentences was unconstitutional, in part or in whole, the entire amendment needed to be struck down as it was non-severable.

Poplar root sprouts emerging along the root of an originating tree (not visible) In botany, a root sprout is a severable plant that grows not from a seed but from the meristem of a root at the base of or a certain distance from the original tree or shrub. Root sprouts may emerge a substantial distance from the base of the originating plant, are a form of vegetative dispersal, and may form a patch that constitutes a habitat in which that surculose plant is the dominant species. Root sprouts also may grow from the roots of trees that have been felled. Tree roots ordinarily grow outward from their trunks a distance of 1.5 to 2 times their heights, and therefore root sprouts could hypothetically emerge a substantial distance from the trunk.

The 5-1 result in favour of The State of Western Australia answered question (i) (Is section 6 of the Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899 (WA) invalid?) in the negative. Question (ii) (Are Sections 2A(2), 6 and 9 of the Electoral Distribution Act 1947 (WA), or any of them, invalid?) was similarly rejected, and question (iii) (If any of the Sections 2A(2), 6 or 9 of the Electoral Distribution Act 1947 (WA) is or are invalid, is it or are they severable and, if so, to what extent?) was unnecessary to consider. By ruling against the case, the High Court set the precedent that the phrase "directly chosen by the people" in ss 7 and 24 of the Constitution could not be construed to incorporate a principle of one vote, one value.

The place demonstrates rare, uncommon or endangered aspects of Queensland's cultural heritage. The man and his hotel became synonymous: the use of the Corones name as the hotel name represented a significant break in the English tradition of the naming of hotels within an accepted nomenclature, a marketing strategy which was to see both the man and his hotel achieve (a joint and severable) iconic status in the west. That this icon was also of Greek origin was even more singular: Greek migration to Queensland in this century was most visible in the small business sector; the Greek cafe and green grocer became standard fixtures in the state's cities and throughout rural Queensland. Harry Corones' move into the hotel industry and the scale in which it was undertaken (uncompromisingly proclaimed by his ambitious plans for the Hotel Corones) represented a significant leap.

Riding on the statewide economic boom of the 1920s, Harry "Poppa" Corones built his hotel which was to become a byword for hospitality in the west. Spanning nearly a block of Charleville's main street, the Hotel Corones was also to become in the succeeding decades, a symbol of both the prosperity and the changing fortunes of the town and the pastoral industry of south west Queensland, which it served. The place has a special association with the life or work of a particular person, group or organisation of importance in Queensland's history. The man and his hotel became synonymous: the use of the Corones name as the hotel name represented a significant break in the English tradition of the naming of hotels within an accepted nomenclature, a marketing strategy which was to see both the man and his hotel achieve (a joint and severable) iconic status in the west.

Texas and nineteen other states filed a civil suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in February 2018, arguing that with the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which eliminated the tax for not having health insurance, the individual mandate no longer had a constitutional basis and thus the entire ACA was no longer constitutional. The Department of Justice said it would no longer defend ACA in court, but seventeen states led by California stepped in to do so. District Judge Reed O'Connor of Texas ruled for the plaintiffs on December 14, 2018, stating that the "Individual Mandate can no longer be fairly read as an exercise of Congress's Tax Power and is still impermissible under the Interstate Commerce Clause—meaning the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional." He then further reasoned that the individual mandate is an essential part of the entire law, and thus was not severable, making the entire law unconstitutional.