Example sentences of "of [art] [noun] of appeal [prep] " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | In People v. Rosario ( 1961 ) 213 N.Y.S. 2d 448 four members of the Court of Appeals of New York , adopting the view of the United States Supreme Court in Jencks v. United States ( 1957 ) 353 U.S. 657 , ruled that the entire previous statements of prosecution witnesses ought to be shown to defence counsel after the direct examination with a view to his cross-examining those witnesses and attacking their credibility , saying that counsel were best able to decide what use could be made of the statements , whereas three members of the court took a narrower view and , following the line of authority which had hitherto prevailed in New York , held that defence counsel could examine and use only those portions of a statement which , according to the view of the trial judge , contained variances from a witness 's evidence . |
| 2 | The most recent , involving the claim that his mental state might not have been adequately conveyed to the jury during his original trial , had been upheld by Judge John Noonan of the Court of Appeals of the ninth US Circuit based in San Francisco , on March 30 , 1990 . |
| 3 | On Feb. 7 , 1990 , Bush nominated Clarence Thomas , 41 , a black conservative lawyer , as judge of the Court of Appeals in Washington . |
| 4 | The case was taken on appeal to the House of Lords , who upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal on the merits , but rebuked the Court of Appeal for not following its own previous decisions . |
| 5 | If the judgment of the Court of Appeal on 4 October 1991 , finally deciding the compromise issue and the cancellation issue , was not a final judgment for the purposes of rule 2 of the Order of 1910 , then the petitioner has been deprived of an appeal to the Privy Council as of right , an unintended consequence of the decision by Wylie J. that , in the interest of justice and for the possible saving of time and expense , the compromise issue should be tried as a preliminary issue . |
| 6 | Cooke P. delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal on 4 November 1991 said : |
| 7 | Mr. Page appeals to your Lordships ' House against the decision of the Court of Appeal on the construction of the statutes : the university and the visitor cross-appeal against the decision on jurisdiction . |
| 8 | The question of the attitude of the particular plaintiff , a woman aged 37 years , to a scar on her forehead arose in Dimmock v Miles , a decision of the Court of Appeal on 12 December 1969 . |
| 9 | As in the case of an award for pain and suffering , the assessment of damages for loss of amenities is based upon the level of awards in previous cases which appear to be comparable or , failing such awards , upon " impression based of necessity in large measure on the combination of intuition and experience " : per Bridge LJ in Hughes v Goodall , a decision of the Court of Appeal on 18 February 1977 . |
| 10 | In Mustard v Morris , a decision of the Court of Appeal on 21 July 1981 it was argued that the award of damages for loss of amenities to a man who was already quite seriously disabled should be less than that to a previously fit person who had suffered equivalent injuries . |
| 11 | PETITION by the petitioner , Strathmore Group Ltd. , for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand ( Richardson , Hardie Boys and Gault JJ. ) given on 4 October 1991 allowing an appeal by the respondents , A. M. Fraser , C. Y. Todd and Durafort Investments Ltd. , from the judgment of Robertson J. in the High Court of New Zealand on 9 November 1990 , whereby he held that there had been no compromise which concluded all existing and future litigation between the parties ; and , as far as necessary , from the judgment of the Court of Appeal ( Cooke P. , Richardson and Hardie Boys JJ. ) given on 4 November 1991 dismissing the petitioner 's application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council . |
| 12 | Decision of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica reversed . |
| 13 | Appeal ( No. 40 of 1990 ) with special leave by the defendant , Linton Berry , from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica ( Carey P. ( Ag . ) , |
| 14 | This is an appeal by special leave of Her Majesty in Council granted on 24 July 1990 from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica given on 10 November 1989 and dismissing the defendant 's appeal against his conviction on 22 March 1988 in the Home Circuit Court , Kingston , Jamaica for the murder of Paulette Zaidie ( ‘ Paulette ’ ) on 11 January 1987 . |
| 15 | APPEAL ( No. 10 of 1992 ) with leave of the Court of Appeal of Hong Kong , and with special leave , by the applicant , George Tan Soon Gin , from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Hong Kong ( Yang C.J. , Silke V.-P. and Bewley J. ) given on 29 November 1991 , whereby they held that they had no jurisdiction to hear the applicant 's appeal from the judgment of Barnett J. delivered on 13 May 1991 in the High Court [ 1991 ] 2 H.K.L.R. 400 refusing the applicant 's application for judicial review of the decision of the first respondent , Judge Cameron , in the district court dated 4 December 1990 , refusing to stay the criminal proceedings by the second respondent , the Attorney-General of Hong Kong , against the applicant in the district court relating to West L.B. ( Asia ) Ltd. and Barclays ( Asia ) Ltd . |
| 16 | APPEAL ( No. 10 of 1992 ) with leave of the Court of Appeal of Hong Kong , and with special leave , by the applicant , George Tan Soon Gin , from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Hong Kong ( Yang C.J. , Silke V.-P. and Bewley J. ) given on 29 November 1991 , whereby they held that they had no jurisdiction to hear the applicant 's appeal from the judgment of Barnett J. delivered on 13 May 1991 in the High Court [ 1991 ] 2 H.K.L.R. 400 refusing the applicant 's application for judicial review of the decision of the first respondent , Judge Cameron , in the district court dated 4 December 1990 , refusing to stay the criminal proceedings by the second respondent , the Attorney-General of Hong Kong , against the applicant in the district court relating to West L.B. ( Asia ) Ltd. and Barclays ( Asia ) Ltd . |
| 17 | Decision of the Court of Appeal of Hong Kong [ 1991 ] 2 H.K.L.R. 215 reversed . |
| 18 | APPEAL ( No. 28 of 1991 ) with leave of the Court of Appeal of Hong Kong by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Hong Kong ( Cons Ag . |
| 19 | APPEAL ( No. 28 of 1991 ) with leave of the Court of Appeal of Hong Kong by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Hong Kong ( Cons Ag . |
| 20 | Decision of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica affirmed . |
| 21 | APPEAL ( No. 37 of 1991 ) with special leave by the defendant , Lloydell Richards , from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica ( Carberry and Wright JJ.A. and Downer J.A . |
| 22 | Decision of the Court of Appeal of Bermuda affirmed . |
| 23 | APPEAL ( No. 6 of 1991 ) with leave of the Court of Appeal of Bermuda by the plaintiff , Horace Brenton Kelly , from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Bermuda ( Blair-Kerr P. , Roberts and Henry JJ.A. ) given on 30 November 1989 allowing an appeal by the defendants , Margot Cooper and Helen Cooper ( trading as Cooper Associates , a firm ) from the judgment of Hull J. delivered on 14 November 1988 in the Supreme Court of Bermuda ( Civil Jurisdiction ) , whereby he awarded the plaintiff $200,000 damages for breach of contract and made a declaration that the defendants were not entitled to commission on the sale of the plaintiff 's property , and the defendants ' counterclaim for commission was dismissed . |
| 24 | APPEAL ( No. 6 of 1991 ) with leave of the Court of Appeal of Bermuda by the plaintiff , Horace Brenton Kelly , from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Bermuda ( Blair-Kerr P. , Roberts and Henry JJ.A. ) given on 30 November 1989 allowing an appeal by the defendants , Margot Cooper and Helen Cooper ( trading as Cooper Associates , a firm ) from the judgment of Hull J. delivered on 14 November 1988 in the Supreme Court of Bermuda ( Civil Jurisdiction ) , whereby he awarded the plaintiff $200,000 damages for breach of contract and made a declaration that the defendants were not entitled to commission on the sale of the plaintiff 's property , and the defendants ' counterclaim for commission was dismissed . |
| 25 | This is an appeal from a judgment dated 30 November 1989 of the Court of Appeal of Bermuda ( Blair-Kerr P. , Roberts and Henry JJ.A. ) allowing an appeal from a judgment of Hull J. dated 14 November 1988 of the Supreme Court of Bermuda ( Civil Jurisdiction ) awarding the plaintiff , Mr. Kelly , damages in the sum of $200,000 , declaring that the defendants , a firm of estate agents trading as Cooper Associates , were not entitled to commission on the sale of the plaintiff 's property , Caliban , and dismissing the defendants ' counterclaim for such commission . |
| 26 | Johnson , which began in the county court , situations can arise in which there is not only an important point of interpretation to be decided , but also binding decisions of the Court of Appeal to be considered . |
| 27 | This brings us back to the refusal of the Court of Appeal to relist . |
| 28 | the failure of the Court of Appeal to relist in order to dispose of B 's remaining arguments about his trial ( and , if necessary , to certify matters for appeal to the House of Lords , including the reach of the Gallagher jurisdiction ) is both a substantive failure of the legal system to provide B with a fair criminal trial and a demonstration that there are no further remedies to raise the issue available to B within the English legal system that he must pursue as a precondition for the admissibility of any claim under the European Convention . |
| 29 | The Gallagher jurisdiction rule is uncertain ; the refusal of the Court of Appeal to relist B's appeal combined with its refusal to certify prevented B from resolving the uncertainty or ascertaining what English law is on this matter . |
| 30 | 463 , a decision of the Court of Appeal to the effect that the false pretences rule concerning the passing of a good title to an innocent purchaser applied when the owner had been induced by false pretences to deliver goods to the buyer on sale or return . |