Issue 2. Through site lanes in sub-precinct A
Issue 2. Raising the height standard in sub-precinct C Whether the height standard should be raised as requested in the submission?
Issue 2. Should the Claimant’s Claim be struck out pursuant to Part 26.2(1)(c) of the CPR as it discloses no grounds for bringing the Claim? [52] Part 26.2(1)(c) of the CPR states as follows:
Examples of Issue 2 in a sentence
Type 2B arrangements and variations are in accordance with Telcordia Technologies Technical Reference GR-145-Core, Issue 2, May 1998, as in effect from time to time (or any successor thereto).
These environmental conditions shall adhere to Telcordia Network Equipment Building System (NEBS) standards GR-63-CORE Issue 2 or other mutually agreed upon standards.
ANSI T1.413-1998 (Issue 2 and subsequent revisions) Asymmetrical Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) Metallic Interface.
Bellcore TR-NWT-000008, Digital Interface Between the SLC®96 Digital Loop Carrier System and a Local Digital Switch, Issue 2, August 1987; and Revision 1, September 1993; and Bulletin 1, October 1994.
Bellcore TR-NWT-000239, Generic Requirements for Indoor Telephone Network Interfaces, Issue 2, December 1993.
More Definitions of Issue 2
Issue 2. Compliance with Section VI of the Amended AD Agreement (Elimination of 85 Percent of Dumping) Petitioners’ Arguments Respondents calculated normal value with certain sales that cannot be used as a basis for normal value.36 34 See Antidumping Suspension Agreement on Sugar From Mexico: Rescission of 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 26914 (June 12, 2017).
Issue 2. Did the trial Judge xxx in finding that the Government’s conduct during the 2016 contract negotiations between the University of Manitoba and UMFA amounted to an infringement of freedom of association? 12 IV. ARGUMENT 12 The Trial Judge’s Decision is Owed Deference 12 Freedom of Association under s. 2(d) of the Charter – The Arc Bends Increasingly Towards Workplace Justice 14 The SCC did not Constitutionalize Wage Restraint Legislation in Xxxxxxxx 19 The Trial Judge did not Xxx in Concluding that the PSSA Violates s. 2(d) 23
Issue 2. Does the Commission have the statutory authority to approve FPL’s requested Reserve Surplus Amortization Mechanism (RSAM) as part of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement? *Yes. The Commission has approved substantially the same mechanism in settlements of FPL’s last three rate cases. The Florida Supreme Court has affirmed the settlements in the last two of those cases as being in the public interest. In its opinion affirming FPL’s 2012 rate case settlement, the Court specifically considered and rejected a contention that the variable-amortization mechanism at issue there was not reasonable and would result in unfair rates.* The Commission has the statutory authority to approve the RSAM presented in the Settlement Agreement. One of the Commission’s fundamental, broad, and overriding statutory rate-setting responsibilities is to ensure that rates are just and reasonable for services rendered. See Sections 366.05, 366.06, Florida Statutes, and Citizens, 425 So.2d at 540 (noting that the Florida Supreme Court “has consistently recognized the broad legislative grant of authority [Sections 366.05 and 366.06, Florida Statutes] confer and the considerable license the Commission enjoys as a result of this delegation.”). The RSAM is consistent with, and in fact furthers that statutory mandate. Under the express terms of the Settlement Agreement, the RSAM provides that FPL would be permitted to use variable amortization only to stay within its Commission-approved XXX range. Settlement Agreement at Paragraph 16(c). This allows FPL to operate within the rate structure supported by the Agreement’s Signatories and does nothing to interfere with the Commission’s authority to monitor FPL’s earnings. Thus, the RSAM is entirely consistent with this fundamental statutory element of the Commission’s rate-setting process. Moreover, the Commission has approved substantially the same mechanism in settlements of FPL’s last three rate cases, and the Florida Supreme Court has affirmed the settlements in the last two of those cases as being in the public interest. Brown, 243 So.3d 903 (approving FPL’s 2016 rate settlement which included an RSAM); Citizens, 146 So.3d at 1149 (approving FPL’s 2012 rate settlement which included an RSAM). In its order affirming FPL’s 2012 rate case settlement, the Court specifically considered and rejected the contention that the variable- amortization mechanism at issue was not reasonable and would result in unfair rates. Citizens, 146 So.3d at 117...
Issue 2. Did the High Court err in finding that First Gas’ rights are not subject to binding arrangement or agreement? [35] The Trustees’ argument under this head is now based on an agreement between MDL and Federated Farmers (FF), executed in or around 197421 and identified subsequent to delivery of Xxxxx X’s judgment.22 They say that the rights conferred by the PECs and the Act are subject to this agreement which was referred to in argument as the Maui Pipeline Agreement (MPA). [36] The MPA predated construction of the pipeline and addressed, ostensibly on behalf of all farmers through whose land it passed, issues such as: the width of what it referred to as “the easement” (but which is in effect the pipeline “strip”); arrangements for removal of trees; farm access across the relevant area during construction; the depth at which the pipe was to be laid; ongoing compensation arrangements (“fifty per 19 Including (9 November 1962) 332 NZPD 2567–2568; (13 December 1962) 333 NZPD 3398– 3401; (22 September 1967) 353 NZPD 3221–3225; (4 October 1967) 353 NZPD 3475–3488; (25 October 1967) 353 NZPD 3609–3622; and (6 November 1974) 395 NZPD 5594–5602. 20 Which provides for rights of entry on oral notice (as may be practicable in the circumstances) where there is imminent danger to life or property, or a likelihood of serious interference with or damage to any public work from any cause whatever and which requires immediate remedial work.
Issue 2. Payments under the Rental Agreements: Section 856(c)(2) provides that at least 95 percent of a REIT’s gross income must be derived from, among other sources, rents from real property. Section 856(c)(3) provides that at least 75 percent of a REIT’s gross income must be derived from, among other sources, rents from real property. Section 856(d)(1) provides that “rents from real property” include (subject to exclusions provided in section 856(d)(2)): (A) rents from interests in real property; (B) charges for services customarily furnished or rendered in connection with the rental of real property, whether or not such charges are separately stated; and (C) rent attributable to personal property leased under, or in connection with, a lease of real property, but only if the rent attributable to the personal property for the taxable year does not exceed 15 percent of the total rent for the taxable year attributable to both the real and personal property leased under, or in connection with, the lease.
Issue 2. Did the trial judge xxx in awarding Charter damages by assuming that the Government’s mandate caused UMFA to strike and to lose a four-year agreement that was similar to a proposal previously rejected?
Issue 2 whether the defendant breached the contract