Court Review. If any court determines that any of the Restrictive Covenants, or any part thereof, is unenforceable because of the duration or geographical scope of, or scope of activities restrained by, such provision, such court shall have the power to reduce the duration or scope of such provision, as the case may be, and, in its reduced form, such provision shall then be enforceable.
Court Review. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code §121366, a person under order of detention must be allowed a court review within 60 days of the Health Officer’s Order for Detention to authorize the detention. Thereafter, a court review is necessary every 90 days to continue the detention. The sending LHD will determine whether the TB detention patient will be transported back to the sending LHD to attend the court review or if the patient will participate by telephone. The sending LHD is responsible for expenses associated with the patient’s participation in the court review.
Court Review. All proceedings with respect to the administration, processing, and determination of claims, and the determinations of all controversies relating thereto, including disputed questions of law and fact with respect to the validity of Claim Forms, shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. To the extent the Settlement Administrator rejects a Claim Form, the Claimant whose Claim Form was rejected will be advised in writing of the reasons for the rejection and that such Claimant will have the opportunity to seek Court review of the Settlement Administrator’s rejection. All Claimants expressly waive trial by jury (to the extent any such right may exist) and any right of appeal or review with respect to the Court’s determination.
Court Review. The review by the court shall be limited to questions of law, and the findings of fact by the review committee, if supported by evidence shall be conclusive. If application is made to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is material and that there were reasonable grounds for failure to adduce such evidence in the hearing before the review committee, the court may direct such ad- ditional evidence to be taken before the review committee in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may seem proper. The review committee may modify its findings of fact or its determination by reason of the ad- ditional evidence so taken, and it shall file with the court such modified findings or determina- tion, which findings of fact shall be conclusive. The court shall hear and determine the case upon the original record of the hearing before the review committee, and upon such record as supplemented if supplemented, by further hear- ing before the review committee pursuant to di- rection of the court. The court shall affirm the review committee’s determination, or modified determination, if the court determines that the same is in accordance with law. If the court de- termines that such determination or modified determination is not in accordance with law, the court shall remand the proceeding to the review committee with direction either to make such determination as the court shall determine to be in accordance with law or to take such further proceedings as, in the court’s opinion, the law requires. (Feb. 16, 1938, ch. 30, title III, § 366, 52 Stat. 63; Pub. L. 98–620, title IV, § 402(6), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3357.)
Court Review. There is no court review required for agreements developed under the authority of 15.2-3231, et seq of the Code of Virginia, nor of any annexations effected pursuant to such agreements.
Court Review. The decision of the Contracting Officer or the third-party mediator/arbitrator shall be subject to review by a court of competent jurisdiction. The decision shall not be deemed final if determined by a court to be fraudulent, capricious, arbitrary, grossly erroneous, or made in bad faith.
