COURT'S DECISION Sample Clauses

COURT'S DECISION. 33.01 In the event of any articles or portions of this Agreement being held improper or invalid by any Court of Law or Labour Relations Board, such decision shall not invalidate any other portions of this Agreement than those directly specified by such decision to be invalid, improper or otherwise unenforceable.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (211)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
COURT'S DECISION. 15.01 It is assumed by the parties hereto that each provision of this Agreement is in conformity with all applicable laws of the Dominion of Canada and/or the Province of Manitoba. Should it later be determined that it would be a violation of any legally effective Dominion and/or Provincial statute and/or regulation(s) made thereunder to comply with any provision or provisions of this Agreement for the sole purpose of making such provision or provisions conform to such Dominion or Provincial statute or regulation(s) thereunder, and all other provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in full force and effect.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (9)
COURT'S DECISION. 24.01 It is understood that any changes in municipal, provincial or federal law applicable to the Employer, and which may void any individual portions of this Agreement will be complied with, yet will not be construed to void the remainder of this Agreement.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (5)
COURT'S DECISION. 27.01 Should it be determined by a court of law that it would be a violation of any legally effective Dominion of Canada or Province of Manitoba statute or any regulation(s) made thereunder to comply with any provision or provisions of this Agreement, the parties hereto agree to amend this Agreement for the sole purpose of making such provision or provisions conform to such Dominion of Canada or Province of Manitoba statute or regulation(s) thereunder, and all other provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in full force and effect.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (5)
COURT'S DECISION. In making its decision, the Court shall be bound by the factual findings of the Hearing Officer and shall give substantial difference to the recommended disposition of the Hearing Officer, except the Court shall not be bound by factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence.
Sample 1Sample 2
COURT'S DECISION. This case came before the Court for a bench trial on February 2, 2016, with Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants Xxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx and Xxxxx Xxxxxx (“the Brusers”) represented by Xxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx, Esq. Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Bank of Hawai`i, as successor Trustee under that certain Trust Agreement dated June 6, 1974 (“BOH”), was represented by Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Esq. Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxx, Trustee of the Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxx Irrevocable Trust; Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxx, Trustee of the Xxxx X. Xxxxxx Irrevocable Trust; Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxx, Trustee of the Xxxxx X. Xxxxxx, Xx., Irrevocable Trust; and Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxx, Trustee of the Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxx Irrevocable Trust (collectively “the Xxxxxxxxx/Gowans”) were represented by Xxxxx X.X. Xxxx, Esq. Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx, Trustee of the Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx Trust and the Xxxxxx X. Yokoyama, Jr. Trust (collectively “Xxxxxxxx”) were represented by Xxxxxxxxxxx X.X. Xxxxx, Esq. Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs Xxxxx Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxx (collectively “Xxxxxx Xxx”) were represented by Xxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Jr., Esq. Finally, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff the Association of Apartment Owners of Discovery Bay (“AOAO”) was represented by Xxxxxx X. Xxxxxx, Esq. The Court hereby outlines its decision. BOH is instructed to prepare the proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (“FOF/COL”) consistent with the Court’s ruling herein, and annotated to the record and the trial transcript by no later than March 22, 2016. The Brusers may respond to those portions of BOH’s proposed FOF/COL that they object to by filing an alternative proposed FOF/COL, annotated to the record and the trial transcript, and addressing the portions objected to, by no later than April 12, 2016. Thereafter, a final FOF/COL shall be issued by the Court that will supersede any rulings, findings, or conclusions herein, and that will serve as the final decision in this matter.
Sample 1Sample 2
COURT'S DECISION. 70) The Court accepts that the matter upon which the article sought to comment was a matter of public interest. In my view, it is not correct to say, as the Claimant’s submission asserts that: The issue for this court is not so much as to whether the contents of the article is a matter of public interest but whether the “whole thrust of the article was true” in so far as the conclusion that the ordinary reader would have come to having read to the article once regarding the conduct of the public official in lending his “firm/company…$307 million” at a time when he had ministerial portfolio over the lending agency. Rather, with respect, the issues are whether the publication as a whole is defamatory as understood by the ordinary reasonable reader of the Gleaner and, if it is, it is a matter of public interest in which the Defendant has exercised the principles of responsible journalism so as to avail itself of the Xxxxxxxx defence. The Court is therefore cognizant of the fact that the determination as to whether the article, if otherwise defamatory, should be considered as protected by Xxxxxxxx defence, depends upon an assessment of whether it lived up to the principles of responsible journalism as determined by the court. There is a balancing act here which the Court must exercise in coming to a decision.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
COURT'S DECISION. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, reinstating the MeTC’s ruling in favor of the petitioner. It clarified that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint, not the nomenclature given to it by the plaintiff or how the parties might have termed their dispute. The Court found that the complaint for ejectment sufficiently established a case for unlawful detainer as it outlined how the respondent’s possession, originally lawful, became unlawful upon non-compliance with the demand to vacate. The Court emphasized that in unlawful detainer cases, the key issue is the factual possession of the property, irrespective of any claim of ownership, and the summary nature of the proceedings is designed to quickly restore possession to the aggrieved party. Doctrine: The Supreme Court reiterated the doctrine that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of an action is determined by the allegations in the complaint, and that in actions for unlawful detainer, the principal issue is the de facto possession of the property, not the parties’ claims to ownership. Class Notes: – Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint. – Unlawful detainer actions focus on the factual possession of the property. – In unlawful detainer cases, claims of ownership are resolved only provisionally and as necessary for settling possession issues. – Compliance with the jurisdictional requirement of demand is necessary for filing an unlawful detainer action. – The MeTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over unlawful detainer cases, subject to the assessed value of the property involved.
Sample 1

Related to COURT'S DECISION

  • Arbitrator’s Decision 27.3.3.1 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.

  • The Decision If mediation fails or is not appropriate and if the decision can be rendered after a short deliberation, the arbitrator will do so. By meeting first with counsel to explain the framework of the arbitrator's decision, the parties are provided with an opportunity to influence the exact terms of resolution. Within the framework of settlement as outlined by the arbitrator, the parties can work out exact terms which best suit the specifics of the case. Such an opportunity should not be wasted by continuing to argue the merits of the case. With respect to grievances involving customer complaints, the following will apply:

  • Waiver of Jury Trial and Class Action Each Party, to the extent permitted by law, knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally waives its right to a trial by jury and any right to pursue any claim or action arising out of or relating to this Agreement on a class or consolidated basis or in a representative capacity.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Recourse to Agencies or Courts of Competent Jurisdiction Notwithstanding Section 11.2, nothing in this Agreement shall restrict the rights of a Party to file a complaint with the FERC under relevant provisions of the Federal Power Act or with the PUCO under relevant provisions of the Legal Authorities. The Parties’ agreement under this Section 11.3 is without prejudice to any Party’s right to contest jurisdiction of the FERC or PUCO to which a complaint is brought.

  • Access to the Courts of Justice Each Contracting Party shall in its Area accord to investors of the other Contracting Party treatment no less favourable than the treatment which it accords in like circumstances to its own investors or investors of a non- Contracting Party with respect to access to the courts of justice and administrative tribunals and agencies in all degrees of jurisdiction, both in pursuit and in defence of such investors’ rights.

  • 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.

  • LITIGATION OR ARBITRATION In the event that suit or arbitration is brought to enforce the terms of this agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to litigation costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. The Dispute Resolution provisions are set forth on Exhibit "B," ‘Dispute Resolution’ attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.

  • Jurisdiction of the Arbitrator The arbitrator shall have no power to alter, add to, subtract from the terms of this Agreement. The arbitrator's decision will be based upon the specific provisions of this Agreement. This arbitration provision shall be for grievances only.

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