Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
4.2: No-Contact Rule; if a person has an attorney, other attorneys should not communicate directly with that person. [19] 5 Law Firms and Associations 5.5: Unauthorized Practice of Law: Attorneys cannot practice law without being properly admitted or otherwise authorized to practice within a given jurisdiction. [20] 6 Public Service
The most common order made in successful judicial review proceedings is a quashing order. If the court makes a quashing order it can send the case back to the original decision maker directing it to remake the decision in light of the court’s findings. Very rarely, if there is no purpose in sending the case back, it may take the decision itself.
A plurality of independent claims in the same claim category are only allowable in the exceptional circumstances listed in Rule 43(2)(a), (b) and (c). The applicant has the burden of showing "that one of the exceptions under Rule 43(2) EPC apply". [12] Rule 43(2) is only applicable during examination proceedings, not in opposition proceedings. [13]
Competent Tribunal is a term used in Article 5 paragraph 2 of the Third Geneva Convention, which states: . Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has ...
In UK public law, the duty of candour is the duty imposed on a public authority "not to seek to win [a] litigation at all costs but to assist the court in reaching the correct result and thereby to improve standards in public administration."
The Federal Courts Act, and the concurrent Federal Courts Rules govern any application for judicial review in the federal courts. The source of this power can be found in s. 28 of the Federal Courts Act, which provides that the Federal Court of Appeal is the appropriate venue for judicial review of decisions by federal boards and tribunals. In ...
However, a subsequent CAFC decision seems to directly contradict the standard used in McKesson. In the 2009 case Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and S.A.A.T. Systems , [ 10 ] SAAT attempted to defend with a claim of inequitable conduct, alleging Exergen was aware of two earlier patents that it did not cite to the examiner during prosecution.
When applying the correctness standard, a reviewing court will not show deference to the decision maker’s reasoning process; it will rather undertake its own analysis of the question. The analysis will bring the court to decide whether it agrees with the determination of the decision maker; if not, the court will substitute its own view and ...