Court Review Sample Clauses

Court Review. If any court determines that any of the Restrictive Covenants, or any part thereof, is unenforceable because of the duration or geographical scope of, or scope of activities restrained by, such provision, such court shall have the power to reduce the duration or scope of such provision, as the case may be, and, in its reduced form, such provision shall then be enforceable.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (58)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Court Review. 6. All proceedings with respect to the administration, processing, and determination of claims, and the determinations of all controversies relating thereto, including disputed questions of law and fact with respect to the validity of Claim Forms, shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. To the extent the Settlement Administrator rejects a Claim Form, the Claimant whose Claim Form was rejected will be advised in writing of the reasons for the rejection and that such Claimant will have the opportunity to seek Court review of the Settlement Administrator’s rejection. All Claimants expressly waive trial by jury (to the extent any such right may exist) and any right of appeal or review with respect to the Court’s determination.
Sample 1
Court Review. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code §121366, a person under order of detention must be allowed a court review within 60 days of the Health Officer’s Order for Detention to authorize the detention. Thereafter, a court review is necessary every 90 days to continue the detention. The sending LHD will determine whether the TB detention patient will be transported back to the sending LHD to attend the court review or if the patient will participate by telephone. The sending LHD is responsible for expenses associated with the patient’s participation in the court review.
Sample 1
Court Review. The review by the court shall be limited to questions of law, and the findings of fact by the review committee, if supported by evidence shall be conclusive. If application is made to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is material and that there were reasonable grounds for failure to adduce such evidence in the hearing before the review committee, the court may direct such ad- ditional evidence to be taken before the review committee in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may seem proper. The review committee may modify its findings of fact or its determination by reason of the ad- ditional evidence so taken, and it shall file with the court such modified findings or determina- tion, which findings of fact shall be conclusive. The court shall hear and determine the case upon the original record of the hearing before the review committee, and upon such record as supplemented if supplemented, by further hear- ing before the review committee pursuant to di- rection of the court. The court shall affirm the review committee’s determination, or modified determination, if the court determines that the same is in accordance with law. If the court de- termines that such determination or modified determination is not in accordance with law, the court shall remand the proceeding to the review committee with direction either to make such determination as the court shall determine to be in accordance with law or to take such further proceedings as, in the court’s opinion, the law requires. (Feb. 16, 1938, ch. 30, title III, § 366, 52 Stat. 63; Pub. L. 98–620, title IV, § 402(6), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3357.)
Sample 1
Court Review. There is no court review required for agreements developed under the authority of 15.2-3231, et seq of the Code of Virginia, nor of any annexations effected pursuant to such agreements.
Sample 1

Related to Court Review

  • Post Review With respect to each contract not governed by paragraph 2 of this Part, the procedures set forth in paragraph 4 of Appendix 1 to the Guidelines shall apply.

  • Independent Review Contractor shall provide the Secretary of ADS/CIO an independent expert review of any Agency recommendation for any information technology activity when its total cost is $1,000,000.00 or greater or when CIO requires one. The State has identified two sub-categories for Independent Reviews, Standard and Complex. The State will identify in the SOW RFP the sub-category they are seeking. State shall not consider bids greater than the maximum value indicated below for this category. Standard Independent Review $25,000 Maximum Complex Independent Review $50,000 Maximum Per Vermont statute 3 V.S.A. 2222, The Secretary of Administration shall obtain independent expert review of any recommendation for any information technology initiated after July 1, 1996, as information technology activity is defined by subdivision (a) (10), when its total cost is $1,000,000 or greater or when required by the State Chief Information Officer. Documentation of this independent review shall be included when plans are submitted for review pursuant to subdivisions (a)(9) and (10) of this section. The independent review shall include: • An acquisition cost assessment • A technology architecture review • An implementation plan assessment • A cost analysis and model for benefit analysis • A procurement negotiation advisory services contract • An impact analysis on net operating costs for the agency carrying out the activity In addition, from time to time special reviews of the advisability and feasibility of certain types of IT strategies may be required. Following are Requirements and Capabilities for this Service: • Identify acquisition and lifecycle costs; • Assess wide area network (WAN) and/or local area network (LAN) impact; • Assess risks and/or review technical risk assessments of an IT project including security, data classification(s), subsystem designs, architectures, and computer systems in terms of their impact on costs, benefits, schedule and technical performance; • Assess, evaluate and critically review implementation plans, e.g.: • Adequacy of support for conversion and implementation activities • Adequacy of department and partner staff to provide Project Management • Adequacy of planned testing procedures • Acceptance/readiness of staff • Schedule soundness • Adequacy of training pre and post project • Assess proposed technical architecture to validate conformance to the State’s “strategic direction.” • Insure system use toolsets and strategies are consistent with State Chief Information Officer (CIO) policies, including security and digital records management; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to security and systems integration with other applications within the Department, and within the Agency, and existing or planned Enterprise Applications; • Perform cost and schedule risk assessments to support various alternatives to meet mission need, recommend alternative courses of action when one or more interdependent segment(s) or phase(s) experience a delay, and recommend opportunities for new technology insertions; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to the state of the art in this technology. • Assess a project’s backup/recovery strategy and the project’s disaster recovery plans for adequacy and conformance to State policy. • Evaluate the ability of a proposed solution to meet the needs for which the solution has been proposed, define the ability of the operational and user staff to integrate this solution into their work.

  • Office of Inspector General Investigative Findings Expert Review In accordance with Senate Bill 799, Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., if Texas Government Code, Section 531.102(m-1)(2) is applicable to this Contract, Contractor affirms that it possesses the necessary occupational licenses and experience.

  • Questions About Review The Asset Representations Reviewer will make appropriate personnel available to respond in writing to written questions or requests for clarification of any Review Report from the Indenture Trustee or the Servicer until the earlier of (i) the payment in full of the Notes and (ii) one year after the delivery of the Review Report. The Asset Representations Reviewer will not be obligated to respond to questions or requests for clarification from a Noteholder or any other Person and will direct such Persons to submit written questions or requests to the Indenture Trustee.

  • Attorney Review The Purchaser acknowledges that Purchaser has had the opportunity to consult with its legal counsel regarding the Agreement and that accordingly the terms of the Agreement are not to be construed against any party because that party drafted the Agreement or construed in favor of any Party because that Party failed to understand the legal effect of the provisions of the Agreement.

  • Contract Review Agent shall have reviewed all material contracts of Borrowers including, without limitation, leases, union contracts, labor contracts, vendor supply contracts, license agreements and distributorship agreements and such contracts and agreements shall be satisfactory in all respects to Agent;

  • Arbitration Decision The arbitrator’s decision will be final and binding. The arbitrator shall issue a written arbitration decision revealing the essential findings and conclusions upon which the decision and/or award is based. A party’s right to appeal the decision is limited to grounds provided under applicable federal or state law.

  • Arbitrator’s Decision 5.18.3.3.1 The Arbitrator's decision and award shall be in writing and shall state concisely the reasons for the award, including the Arbitrator's findings of fact and conclusions of law.

  • Arbitration Decisions Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, the arbitrator(s) shall render a decision within ninety (90) Calendar Days of appointment and shall notify the Parties in writing of such decision and the reasons therefor. The arbitrator(s) shall be authorized only to interpret and apply the provisions of this LGIA and shall have no power to modify or change any provision of this Agreement in any manner. The decision of the arbitrator(s) shall be final and binding upon the Parties, and judgment on the award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. The decision of the arbitrator(s) may be appealed solely on the grounds that the conduct of the arbitrator(s), or the decision itself, violated the standards set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act or the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act. The final decision of the arbitrator(s) must also be filed with FERC if it affects jurisdictional rates, terms and conditions of service, Interconnection Facilities, or Network Upgrades.

  • Review The practitioner reviews the treatment plan and discusses, when appropriate, case circumstances and management options with the attending (or referring) physician. The reviewer consults with the requesting physician when more clarity is needed to make an informed coverage decision. The reviewer may consult with board certified physicians from appropriate specialty areas to assist in making determinations of coverage and/or appropriateness. All such consultations will be documented in the review text. If the reviewer determines that the admission, continued stay or service requested is not a covered service, a notice of non-coverage is issued. Only a physician, behavioral health practitioner (such as a psychiatrist, doctoral-level clinical psychologist, certified addiction medicine specialist), dentist or pharmacist who has the clinical expertise appropriate to the request under review with an unrestricted license may deny coverage based on medical necessity.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.