Search for: "Clyne v. Clyne"
Results 1 - 20
of 26
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Nov 2007, 12:00 am
(Chawla v. [read post]
23 Sep 2014, 1:27 pm
An issue is moot when it may not properly be decided by this court unless it is found to be within the exception to the doctrine which permits the courts to preserve for review important and recurring issues which, by virtue of their relatively brief existence, would be rendered otherwise nonreviewable as held in Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne and Roe v Wade. [read post]
13 May 2011, 4:45 am
High Court (Chancery Division) Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd v Associated British Ports [2011] EWHC 1184 (Ch) (11 May 2011) High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) MJN v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 1192 (QB) (11 May 2011) Clynes v O’ Connor [2011] EWHC 1201 (QB) (13 May 2011) High Court (Technology and Construction Court) Harry Yearsley Ltd v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] EWHC 1160 (TCC) (12 May 2011) Source:… [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 5:14 pm
" Where these three factors are present, this issue should be addressed by a criminal court as an exception to the mootness doctrine as held in People v Brown, People v Mejia, Matter of Crystal AA and Wagner v Infante. [read post]
7 Oct 2014, 5:19 pm
" In Hamdi v Rumsfeld, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged that there is a tension "between the autonomy that the Government asserts is necessary in order to pursue effectively a particular goal and the process that a citizen contends he is due before he is deprived of a constitutional right as held in Mathews v Eldridge. [read post]
14 Oct 2014, 5:24 pm
As noted in People v Paul, whether a foundation for the experience and training is set forth or not, it seems that, as a matter of fundamental fairness, defendant should not have to proceed to trial in a narcotics case unless and until a laboratory report has been filed by the People. [read post]
16 Oct 2020, 7:30 am
"The court explained that it is "a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that the power of a court to declare the law only arises out of, and is limited to, determining the rights of persons which are actually controverted in a particular case pending before the tribunal," referencing Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, at page 713.Opining that "[u]nder the circumstances here, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition as moot," the… [read post]
16 Oct 2020, 7:30 am
"The court explained that it is "a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that the power of a court to declare the law only arises out of, and is limited to, determining the rights of persons which are actually controverted in a particular case pending before the tribunal," referencing Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, at page 713.Opining that "[u]nder the circumstances here, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition as moot," the… [read post]
11 Feb 2020, 6:00 am
" Citing Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, the Appellate Division vacated this portion of the arbitrator's award explaining that it "is well established that an appeal will be considered moot unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the appeal and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment. [read post]
31 Mar 2009, 10:15 pm
Hardly a controversial observation.The juvenile death penalty allegation comes from an article by Meghan Clyne in the New York Post, which claims that Koh believes that the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (a treaty ratified by almost all the states of the world except the United States and Somalia) should dictate the age at which individuals can be executed. [read post]
21 May 2019, 4:00 am
"** Claims of exception to the mootness doctrine typically require the court to consider three issues: [a] is the question presented of a substantial public nature; [b] is there is a need for an authoritative determination for the future guidance of public officers; and [3] is there a likelihood of future recurrence of the question [see Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707].The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_03858.htm [read post]
21 May 2019, 4:00 am
"** Claims of exception to the mootness doctrine typically require the court to consider three issues: [a] is the question presented of a substantial public nature; [b] is there is a need for an authoritative determination for the future guidance of public officers; and [3] is there a likelihood of future recurrence of the question [see Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707].The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_03858.htm [read post]
10 Jun 2022, 9:32 pm
Finally, " 'in order to prevent [the amended] judgment which is unreviewable for mootness from spawning any legal consequences or precedent,' " we vacate the amended judgment (Matter of Thrall v CNY Centro, Inc., 89 AD3d 1449, 1451 [4th Dept 2011], lv dismissed 19 NY3d 898 [2012], quoting Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 718 [1980]; see Funderburke v New York State Dept. of Civ. [read post]
10 Jun 2022, 9:32 pm
Finally, " 'in order to prevent [the amended] judgment which is unreviewable for mootness from spawning any legal consequences or precedent,' " we vacate the amended judgment (Matter of Thrall v CNY Centro, Inc., 89 AD3d 1449, 1451 [4th Dept 2011], lv dismissed 19 NY3d 898 [2012], quoting Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 718 [1980]; see Funderburke v New York State Dept. of Civ. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 4:04 pm
Of the 10 cases in which the claimant succeeded in 2011, there were 4 against Mr Kordowksi, and 3 assessments of damages in the absence of the defendant (Al-Amoudi v Kifle and Cooper v Turrell) or where the defendant was in person (Clynes v O’Connor). [read post]
4 Sep 2015, 1:06 pm
In Kelly v. [read post]
26 Jan 2016, 6:00 am
By the time of Nebbia v. [read post]
10 Jun 2015, 3:49 pm
Clyne, 2014 BCPC 132 Privacy OPC PIPEDA Report of Findings #2015-001 Ladas v. [read post]
15 Nov 2018, 10:30 pm
Thronson, Mary Pat Treuthart, Yolanda Vázquez, Robin Walker Sterling, Richard A. [read post]
9 May 2011, 12:31 am
On the same day, Mr Justice Vos will hear applications in the phone hacking cases of Hoppen v NGN and Miller v NGN. [read post]
