Decision Based on Proceeding and Record. The case review shall be based upon the record of the proceeding and on any record made before the Board.
Decision Based on Proceeding and Record Sample Clauses
Related to Decision Based on Proceeding and Record
Pending Proceedings Borrower is not in default under any law or regulation or under any order of any court, board, commission or agency whatsoever, and there are no claims, actions, suits or proceedings pending or, to the knowledge of Borrower, threatened against or affecting Borrower or the Development, at law or in equity, before or by any court, board, commission or agency whatsoever which might, if determined adversely to Borrower, materially affect Borrower's ability to repay the Loan or impair the security to be given to the County pursuant hereto.
Submitting False Claims; Monetary Penalties The AOC shall be entitled to remedy any false claims, as defined in California Government Code section 12650 et seq., made to the AOC by the Contractor or any Subcontractor under the standards set forth in Government Code section 12650 et seq. Any Contractor or Subcontractor who submits a false claim shall be liable to the AOC for three times the amount of damages that the AOC sustains because of the false claim. A Contractor or Subcontractor who submits a false claim shall also be liable to the AOC for (a) the costs, including attorney fees, of a civil action brought to recover any of those penalties or damages, and (b) a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each false claim.
Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this Agreement against City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with City and acted upon by City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may be amended, the provisions of which, including such policies and procedures used by City in the implementation of same, are incorporated herein by this reference. Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement.
Final Approval Order and Judgment 68. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement will include a request to the Court for a scheduled date on which the Final Approval Hearing will occur. Plaintiff shall file her Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement, and application for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses and for Service Award for the Class Representative, no later than 45 days before the Final Approval Hearing. At the Final Approval Hearing, the Court will hear argument on Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement, and on Class Counsel’s application for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, and for the Service Award for the Class Representative. In the Court’s discretion, the Court also will hear argument at the Final Approval Hearing from any Settlement Class Members (or their counsel) who object to the Settlement or to Class Counsel’s application for attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses, or the Service Award application, provided the objector(s) submitted timely objections that meet all of the requirements listed in the Agreement.
Submitting False Claims The full text of San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 21, Section 21.35, including the enforcement and penalty provisions, is incorporated into this Agreement. Pursuant to San Francisco Administrative Code §21.35, any contractor or subcontractor who submits a false claim shall be liable to the City for the statutory penalties set forth in that section. A contractor or subcontractor will be deemed to have submitted a false claim to the City if the contractor or subcontractor: (a) knowingly presents or causes to be presented to an officer or employee of the City a false claim or request for payment or approval;
Limitation on Out-of-State Litigation - Texas Business and Commerce Code § 272 This is a requirement of the TIPS Contract and is non-negotiable. Texas Business and Commerce Code § 272 prohibits a construction contract, or an agreement collateral to or affecting the construction contract, from containing a provision making the contract or agreement, or any conflict arising under the contract or agreement, subject to another state’s law, litigation in the courts of another state, or arbitration in another state. If included in Texas construction contracts, such provisions are voidable by a party obligated by the contract or agreement to perform the work. By submission of this proposal, Vendor acknowledges this law and if Vendor enters into a construction contract with a Texas TIPS Member under this procurement, Vendor certifies compliance.
Litigation Reporting If Contractor is served with a pleading or other document in connection with an action before a court or other administrative decision making body, and such pleading or document relates to this Participating Addendum or may affect Contractor’s ability to perform its obligations under this Participating Addendum, Contractor shall, within 10 days after being served, notify the State of such action and deliver copies of such pleading or document to the State’s primary contact identified in §5 of the Participating Addendum .
Arbitration Proceedings Arbitration between the parties will be subject to the following:
Mini-Bid Transactional Order of Precedence Conflicts of terms and conditions shall be resolved in the order of precedence set forth in section 2.2 Conflict of Terms. Contract Survival The starting date for each Authorized User Agreement will vary but shall not exceed three (3) years in duration. Authorized User Agreements fully executed prior to the expiration of the OGS Centralized Contract shall survive the expiration date of the OGS Centralized Contract, if applicable, based on the term of the Authorized User Agreement.
Data Protection Impact Assessment and Prior Consultation Processor shall provide reasonable assistance to the Company with any data protection impact assessments, and prior consultations with Supervising Authorities or other competent data privacy authorities, which Company reasonably considers to be required by article 35 or 36 of the GDPR or equivalent provisions of any other Data Protection Law, in each case solely in relation to Processing of Company Personal Data by, and taking into account the nature of the Processing and information available to, the Contracted Processors.
