Search for: "MATTER OF RULES OF EVIDENCE" Results 7361 - 7380 of 42,244
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Jul 2009, 10:38 am
Advocates of the new rule, like Marquis, believe that the problem boils down to technology far outpacing the court rules. [read post]
24 Sep 2024, 12:53 pm by Giles Peaker
Osagie v Onwuka & Anor (LANDLORD & TENANT – FTT PROCEDURE – party failing to attend a hearing – matters to be considered when deciding whether to proceed in party’s absence – rule 34, Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Property Chamber) Rules 2013) (2024) UKUT 293 (LC) Mr Michael Osagie (the landlord) appealed a rent repayment order for £12,600 made by the First Tier Tribunal for the offence of illegal eviction. [read post]
11 Apr 2018, 3:50 am by SHG
It is, on the contrary, a sign that the rule of law is alive. [read post]
12 Jul 2019, 12:21 pm by Jacques Singer-Emery, Patrick McDonnell
Thomas, however, stated that the commission has the authority to do this under Rule for Military Commissions (RMC) 806C, which states that “the military judge may, as a matter of discretion, permit contemporaneous closed-circuit video or audio transmission to permit viewing or hearing. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 1:49 pm
  So overall I’m disappointed with the way matters have developed since Crawford; see my recent piece, Come Back to the Boat, Justice Breyer! [read post]
10 Oct 2011, 11:09 am by Gritsforbreakfast
As a practical matter, that might be the best way to expose prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence, essentially crowd sourcing the task to interested parties around the state who file thousands of open records requests with law enforcement and DAs offices each year. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 1:30 am by Jack Pringle
South Carolina recognizes the rule established by the United States Supreme Court that courts, and not arbitrators, will consider "threshold" questions of "arbitrability" unless there is "clea[r] and unmistakabl[e] evidence" that the parties intended otherwise. [read post]
13 Jun 2014, 12:35 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
., does this ruling have any bearing at all on a case in which at least part of the plaintiff’s evidence of falsity is use of a term that is inconsistent with a FDA definition thereof, such as “generic”? [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 7:49 am by Joy Waltemath
As for whether it was sufficiently prompt, the court noted that there is no bright-line rule. [read post]
5 Apr 2013, 1:01 pm by Bexis
  There’s also a “best evidence rule” argument, but we’re not quarrelling with that. [read post]
27 Feb 2007, 12:02 pm
New York City Housing Court Judge Sheldon Rand ruled on February 21 in Matter of B.L., No. [read post]
16 May 2024, 11:22 am by Neil H. Buchanan
  As a matter of strategy, it is possible that this will not even work. [read post]
16 Apr 2008, 9:00 am
Unfortunately, the students mired in these matters are very naive. [read post]
19 Oct 2020, 7:06 am by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.
” Accordingly, the Court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing this evidence. [read post]
21 Jun 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Whether a claimant has good cause to leave employment is a factual issue for the Board to resolve and its determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence" (Matter of Antonaros [Commissioner of Labor], 223 AD3d 1077, 1077 [3d Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). [read post]
21 Jun 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Whether a claimant has good cause to leave employment is a factual issue for the Board to resolve and its determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence" (Matter of Antonaros [Commissioner of Labor], 223 AD3d 1077, 1077 [3d Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). [read post]
14 Jan 2012, 4:11 pm by INFORRM
In Week 6 of the evidence hearings the Leveson Inquiry began to hear evidence from the press. [read post]
20 Sep 2013, 2:36 pm by Jacek Stramski
He claimed that instead of relying on the jury’s proper determination, the 5th DCA reweighed evidence surrounding the purchase of the car, contravening “a basic tenet of appellate review” which prohibits the reevaluation of evidence for the purpose of supplanting a jury verdict. [read post]