Also, centralized industrial policy — the gravamen of a communist state — has a terrible track record.
|
|
This evidence formed the gravamen of Article I (obstruction of justice) of the impeachment resolution adopted by the Committee.
|
|
"The gravamen of the problem still exists and will not be solved by personnel changes at the dysfunctional White House," Rep.
|
|
The gravamen of their case, however, will be to show that the president and his policies are a disgrace and must go.
|
|
The gravamen of the case is that there is a risk of cancer because of the presence of acrylamide, a chemical created by roasting, baking or frying coffee beans.
|
|
There are substantive aspects of Amis's critique, but the gist — the "gravamen," as he might say — is that Corbyn, a humorless, teetotaling vegetarian wedded to an antiquated style of leftism, is woefully uncool.
|
|
"Exhaustion of the IDEA's administrative procedures is unnecessary where the gravamen of the plaintiff's suit is something other than the denial of the IDEA's core guarantee of a FAPE [Free Appropriate Public Education]," the court said in its decision.
|
|
The gravamen of this offense involved failure to pay an incurred bill at a bar, cafe, hotel, motel or restaurant with intent to defraud the business establishment.
|
|
Res gestae is also used to refer to those facts or things done which form the basis or gravamen for a legal action. Res gestae is also used in respondeat superior vicarious liability law. Particularly, res gestae refers to time, place, and in the interest of an employer.Richberger v.
|
|
Gravamen (from Lat. gravare, to weigh down; gravis, heavy), (plural gra·va·mens or gra·vam·i·na), a complaint or grievance, the ground of a legal action, and particularly the more serious part of a charge against an accused person. In legal terms, it is the essential element of a lawsuit. In English the term is used chiefly in legal submissions and judicial opinions.
|
|
Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986 does not command exhaustion of state-level administrative remedies codified in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) when the gravamen of the plaintiff's lawsuit is not related to the denial of free appropriate public education (FAPE).
|
|
The word is commonly misspelled gravaman. Apart from the normal usage of the word, the gravamen test is used in contract law to distinguish between the sale of goods and services in "hybrid" transactions. Under the test each component of the sale is isolated and individually determined to be either a good or a service. The more common approach used by courts is the predominant purpose test which looks at the general thrust of the exchange rather than each individual component.
|
|
OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 1–2, 10–11. Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that "the conduct constituting the gravamen of Sachs’s suit plainly occurred abroad".OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 8. Commentators have identified this case as part of "a series of rulings" in which the Supreme Court of the United States "has limited the use of U.S. courts as a forum for adjudicating wrongs that took place primarily outside the country".Tony Mauro, Justices' Austrian Train Ruling Further Restricts Foreign Claims in U.S. Courts, , Dec.
|
|
OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 6 (citing Nelson, 507 U.S. at 358). The Court ultimately held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act's "based upon" provision requires courts to identify the "particular conduct" upon which a plaintiff's claim is based.OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 6 (citing Nelson, 507 U.S. at 357) (internal quotations omitted). Applying the Nelson analysis to the facts of this case, Chief Justice Roberts held that "the conduct constituting the gravamen of Sachs’s suit plainly occurred abroad". Justice Roberts also concluded that "[u]nder any theory of the case", there was "nothing wrongful about the sale of the Eurail pass standing alone".
|
|
However, tort and contract law are similar in that both involve a breach of duties, and in modern law these duties have blurred and it may not be clear whether an action "sounds in tort or contract"; if both apply and different standards apply for each (such as a statute of limitations), courts will determine which is the "gravamen" (the most applicable). Circumstances such as those involving professional negligence may involve both torts and contracts. The choice may affect time limits or damages, particularly given that damages are typically relatively limited in contract cases while in tort cases noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering may be awarded. Punitive damages are relatively uncommon in contractual cases versus tort cases.
|
|
The classis in Dordrecht drew up a gravamen in which "some differences" that "were said to have arisen in the Church and University of Leiden on the doctrine of the Reformed Churches" was laid out. In response the three Leiden professors of theology (Lucas Trelcatius Jr. joining Arminius and Gomarus) and the Regent of the State College, Johannes Cuchlinus, wrote an indignant letter, stating "that as far as was known to them there was no conflict between the professors on any fundamental doctrine whatsoever." Gomarus was incited to increase his opposition to Arminius by Leiden minister Festus Hommius and Petrus Plancius, Arminius's old opponent. An anonymous series of thirty-one articles was circulated, "in which all kinds of unorthodox opinions held by Arminius were exposed".
|
|
The defendants made two principal defense arguments. The first was that the "gravamen of the offense may be gathered from the general summary that it is a conspiracy to drive from the field all other traders in the things which make possible the practice of the motion picture art, and to monopolize to themselves that trade, and through this the practice of the art itself." The defendants argued that they were not engaged in trade or commerce, to which the antitrust laws are limited: "The control, with the seeking of which the defendants are charged, is therefore the control of an art, and not of trade, or of anything which is the subject of commerce, or can be brought within the laws relating thereto."225 F. at 802-03.
|
|
It is no answer to the case made by the petition to say, as the defendant, by his counsel, does, that the judgment of the plaintiff is still in force and bearing interest, and the liability of the county still remains undisturbed. What is a judgment worth that cannot be enforced? The gravamen of the plaintiff's complaint is that the defendants have obstructed, and continue to obstruct, the collection of his judgment, and he avers that he has been damaged thereby to the amount of his judgment and interest; in other words, that by reason of the unlawful and malicious conduct of the defendants, his judgment has been rendered worthless. To reply to this that the judgment still remains in force on the records of the court is an inadequate answer to the plaintiff's cause of action.
|
|
Lettmaier's research has described the evolution and ultimate decline of breach of promise lawsuits in England, which allowed women to sue men for breaking a promise to enter into marriage.For a discussion of the definition and history of breach of promise lawsuits, see Lettmaier noted that these lawsuits were gendered as a "ladies' action" during the first half of the nineteenth century, and that traditionally high success rates in these lawsuits declined during the second half of the nineteenth century when the stereotype of "assertive" litigants conflicted with social norms that expected women to be "passive". Her research also indicated that in the late eighteenth century, the gravamen of these lawsuits shifted from claims of economic loss to claims of psychological or emotional harm, though she also rejected the characterization of breach of promise lawsuits as purely contractual disputes.
|
|
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, joined Part I and the parts of Part II regarding the Court's first conclusion on the merits. Alito wrote that he (along with Justice Thomas) declined to join the later part of the Court's opinion where the court laid out the test for the lower courts to use when examining the gravamen of the plaintiff's complaint. Specifically, Alito wrote that the court's test would work well only if there is no overlap between the relief available under the IDEA and the relief provided by other federal laws (including the Rehabilitation Act, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the United States Constitution, inter alia), yet the court admitted that there may be instances when there is such overlap. Alito also disagreed with the third prong of the court's test, which in part stated that the lower court should examine whether (and to what extent) the parents pursued but later abandoned the IDEA's formal procedures before filing a formal lawsuit under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act.
|
|