Supreme Court Sample Clauses

Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall adjudicate all matters arising out of the elections during the transition, in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the country.
Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court has embraced the principle of the pre- disciplinary interview as required due process when an employee may be disciplined. In Case No. 470 U.S. 532, Justice Whitx, xxeaking for the majority, stated: Justice White Supreme Court of the United States 470 U.S. 532 Cleveland Board of Education x. Xxxxxxxxxx xx al Pages 9-10, 12, 13 “An essential principle of due process is that a deprivation of life, liberty, or property "be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case." Xxxxxxx v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950). We have described "the root requirement of the Due Process Clause as being "that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing be- fore he is deprived of any significant property interest." in Xxxxxx v. Connecti- cut, 401 U.S. 371, 379 (1971) (emphasis in original); see Bell x. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 542 (1971). This principle requires "some kind of a hearing" prior to the discharge of an employee who has a constitutionally protected property inter- est in his employment. Board of Regents x. Xxxx, 008 U.S., at 569-570; Xxxxx x. Xxxxxxxxxx, 008 U.S. 593, 599 (1972). As we pointed out last Term, this rule has been settled [***19] for some time now. Xxxxx x. Xxxxxxx, 008 U.S. 183, 192, n. 10 (1984); id., at 200-203 (XXXXXXX, X., xxncurring in part and dissenting in part). Even decisions finding no constitutional violation in termination proce- dures have relied on the existence of some pretermination opportunity to re- spond. First, the significance of the private interest in retaining employment cannot be gainsaid. We have frequently recognized the severity of depriving a person of the means of livelihood. See Xxxxxx x. Xxxxxxxxx, 419 U.S. 379, 389 (1975); Bell x. Burson, supra, at 539; Xxxxxxxx x. Xxxxx, 007 U.S. 254, 264 (1970); Xxxxxxxx x. Family Fianc‚ Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 340 (1969). While a fired worker may find em- ployment elsewhere, doing so will take some time and is likely to be burdened by the questionable circumstances under which he left his previous job. See Xxxxxxxxx x. Xxxxxx, 414 U.S. 70, 83-84 (1973). Second, [***21] some opportunity for the employee to present his side of the case is recurringly of obvious value in reaching an accurate decision. Dismissals for cause will often involve factual disputes. Cf. Xxxxxxxx x. Xxxxxxxx, 442 U.S. 682, 686 (1979). Even where the facts are clear, the appropriateness or necessity of the dischar...
Supreme Court. 4. Uiteindelijk moest het Supreme Court6 van het Vere- nigd Koninkrijk zich over de zaak buigen. Wegens het belang van de zaak voor de internationale arbitragewereld kwamen de bekende arbitrage-instellingen LCIA (London Court of International Arbitration) en ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) in de procedure tussen.
Supreme Court. (1) The Supreme Court may exercise jurisdiction in relation to the commission and the commissioners in the same way and to the same extent as it could if the commission were a body representing the Territory and the commissioners were Territory officers.
Supreme Court. The SC held that the arbitration clause is contained in the standard terms and conditions contained in the attachment to the contract. The SC held, a conscious acceptance of the arbitration clause found in another document is necessary for the purpose of incorporating it in to the contract. Where there is a reference to a document in a contract, and the reference shows that the document was not intended to be incorporated in entirety, then the reference will not make the arbitration clause in the document, a part of the contract, unless there is a special reference to the arbitration clause so as to make it applicable
Supreme Court. Records and Briefs-California (State). Number of Exhibits: 1 Leases & Rental Agreements-Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx 2017-08-30 Anyone who owns or manages residential real estate, anywhere in the U.S., should buy this book, as it provides a solid lease, that can be tailored to the laws of a specific state, and the key rental documents needed to start a tenancy.
Supreme Court. In Nebraska Department of Revenue v. Lxxxxxxxxxx, 005 X. Xx. 000 (0094), the Supreme Court held that a mutual fund which entered into a repurchase transaction was not to be viewed as owning the underlying federal securities but as having made a loan to the holder of such securities for purposes of state taxation of the interest income. The Supreme Court did not dispute the contention of the mutual fund that repos are treated as purchases and sales for purposes of federal securities law, bankruptcy law, banking law as well as commercial and local government law or any other body of law but limited its holding to characterizing the interest as taxable or tax-exempt for Nebraska state law purposes. Furthermore, nothing in the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution or other applicable law directed the Court to consider the provisions of the 1940 Act. Accordingly, the Court's holding in Nebraska Department of Revenue is not applicable to the determination whether the Repos should be viewed as Government securities for purposes of the 75 percent asset test.(12)
Supreme Court 

Related to Supreme Court

  • Courts If a Dispute is still unresolved following ten (10) Business Days after the Disputing Members attempted in good faith to resolve the Dispute in accordance with Section 11.02, then any of such Disputing Members may submit such Dispute to the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware or, in the event that such Court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of such dispute, to another court of the State of Delaware or a U.S. federal court located in the State of Delaware (collectively, “Delaware Courts”). Each of the Members irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of, and agrees not to commence any action, suit, or proceeding relating to a Dispute except in, the Delaware Courts and hereby consents to service of process in any such Dispute by the delivery of such process to such party at the address and in the manner provided in Section 13.01. Each of the Members hereby irrevocably and unconditionally waives any objection to the laying of venue in any Dispute in the Delaware Courts and hereby further irrevocably and unconditionally waives and agrees not to plead or claim in any such court that any action, suit, or proceeding brought in any such court has been brought in an inconvenient forum. EACH MEMBER IRREVOCABLY WAIVES, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, any right it may have to a TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY ACTION, suit, OR PROCEEDING arising out of, relating to or otherwise WITH RESPECT TO THIS AGREEMENT or any transaction contemplated hereby.

  • Jurisdiction of Courts Québec hereby appoints the person from time to time who holds the position of Delegate General of Québec in New York, Xxx Xxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxx, 00xx xxxxx, Xxx Xxxx, Xxx Xxxx 00000-0000, as its authorized agent (the “Authorized Agent”) upon whom process may be served in any action by any Underwriter, or by any person controlling such Underwriter, and based upon this Agreement which may be instituted in any State or Federal court in The City of New York, and expressly accepts the non-exclusive jurisdiction of any such court in respect of such action. Québec hereby irrevocably waives any immunity to service of process in respect of any such action to which the Authorized Agent might otherwise be entitled. Such appointment shall be irrevocable as long as any of the Securities remain outstanding, except that, if for any reason the Authorized Agent ceases to be able to act as agent or no longer has an address in The City of New York, Québec will appoint another person or persons in The City of New York, selected in its discretion, as Authorized Agent(s). Québec will take any and all action, including the filing of any and all documents and instruments that may be necessary to continue such appointment or appointments in full force and effect as aforesaid. Service of process upon the Authorized Agent together with written notice of such service mailed or delivered to Québec at its address set forth in Section 11, shall be deemed in every respect effective service of process upon Québec. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any action by an Underwriter, or by any person controlling such Underwriter, and based upon this Agreement may be instituted in any competent court in Québec. Québec hereby waives, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, any immunity to jurisdiction to which it might otherwise be entitled in any action based on this Agreement which may be instituted as provided in this Section in any State or Federal court in The City of New York or in any competent court in Québec.

  • LAW APPLICABLE AND COMPETENT COURT The grant is governed by the terms of the agreement, the Union rules applicable and, on a subsidiary basis, by the law of Belgium relating to grants. The beneficiaries may bring legal proceedings regarding decisions by the Commission concerning the application of the provisions of the agreement and the arrangements for implementing it before the General Court of the European Union and, in the event of appeal, the Court of Justice.

  • Jurisdiction; Venue Any suit, action or proceeding seeking to enforce any provision of, or based on any matter arising out of or in connection with, this Agreement shall be brought in a state or federal court located in Delaware and each of the Parties to this Agreement hereby consents and submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of such courts (and of the appropriate appellate courts therefrom) in any such suit, action or proceeding and irrevocably waives, to the fullest extent permitted by Applicable Law, any objection which it may now or hereafter have to the laying of the venue of any such suit, action or proceeding in any such court or that any such suit, action or proceeding which is brought in any such court has been brought in an inconvenient forum. Process in any such suit, action or proceeding may be served on any party anywhere in the world, whether within or without the jurisdiction of any such court.

  • Court ordered services and supplies including court-ordered care or testing, or services required as a condition of parole, probation, release or because of any legal proceeding.

  • Application to Court If (i) a claim for indemnification or advancement of Expenses is denied, in whole or in part, (ii) no disposition of such claim is made by the Company within ninety (90) days after the request therefore, (iii) the advancement of Expenses is not timely made pursuant to Section 6 of this Agreement or (iv) payment of indemnification is not made pursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement, the Indemnitee shall have the right to apply to the Delaware Court of Chancery, the court in which the Proceeding is or was pending, or any other court of competent jurisdiction, for the purpose of enforcing the Indemnitee’s right to indemnification (including the advancement of Expenses) pursuant to this Agreement.

  • District Applicant recognizes and acknowledges the calculations relating to the District’s loss of Maintenance and Operations Revenue under this Agreement will be affected by changes to the timing of construction of the Project and any change to the Qualified Property. As such, Applicant acknowledges that it will bear any and all losses of Maintenance and Operations Revenue suffered by the District as a result of this Agreement, including without limitation any increase in the M&O Amount calculated under Section 4.2 to be paid to the District for losses in Maintenance and Operations Revenue resulting from any change in the timing of construction and/or any change to the Qualified Property. The Parties expressly understand and agree that, for all Tax Years to which the Tax Limitation amount set out in Section 2.4 is applied to Applicant’s Qualified Property that is the subject of this Agreement, the calculation of negative financial consequences will be defined for each applicable Tax Year in accordance with the Applicable School Finance Law, as defined in Section 1.2 above, and that such definition specifically contemplates that calculations made under this Agreement may periodically change in accordance with changes in Applicable School Finance Law. The Parties further agree that printouts and projections produced during the negotiations and approval of this Agreement are: (i) for illustrative purposes only, are not intended to be relied upon, and have not been relied upon by the Parties as a prediction of future consequences to either Party; (ii) based upon current Applicable School Finance Law which is subject to change by statute, by administrative regulation (or interpretation thereof), or by judicial decision at any time; and (iii) may change in future years to reflect changes in Applicable School Finance Law.

  • Jurisdiction of English courts (a) The courts of England have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement (including a dispute regarding the existence, validity or termination of this Agreement) (a “Dispute”).

  • Arbitrator's Jurisdiction The jurisdiction and authority of the arbitrator and his opinion and award shall be confined exclusively to the interpretation and/or application of the provision(s) of this Agreement at issue between the Union and the Administration. The arbitrator shall have no authority to add to, detract from, alter, amend, or modify any provision of this Agreement; to impose on either party a limitation or obligation not explicitly provided for in this Agreement; or to establish or alter any wage rate or wage structure. The arbitrator shall not hear or decide more than one grievance without the mutual consent of the Administration and the Union. The written award of the arbitrator on the merits of any grievance adjudicated within his jurisdiction and authority shall be final and binding on the aggrieved employee, the Union and the Administration, unless either party contests it before a court of competent jurisdiction as permitted by state law.

  • Court of Jurisdiction Both DBS and the Member agree that the Tokyo District Court will be the exclusive court of jurisdiction in the first instance in any dispute and/ or legal action relating to the rights and obligations under this Agreement or an Individual Contract. Attachment 1 Contact Information