Foreign Law Determination Sample Clauses

Foreign Law Determination. 26.2. Producing a Witness’s Statement. 26.3. Mistrial.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Foreign Law Determination. A party intending to raise an issue of foreign law must provide the court and all parties with reasonable written notice. Issues of foreign law are questions of law, but in deciding such issues a court may consider any relevant material or source—including testimony—without regard to the Federal Rules of Evidence. (Added Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966; amended Nov. 20, 1972, eff. July 1, 1975; Apr. 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002.) NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1966 The original Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure did not contain a provision explicitly regulating the deter- mination of foreign law. The resolution of issues of for- eign law, when relevant in federal criminal proceed- ings, falls within the general compass of Rule 26 which provides for application of ‘‘the [evidentiary] principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience.’’ See Green, Preliminary Report on the Ad- visability and Feasibility of Developing Uniform Rules of Evidence for the United States District Courts 6–7, 17–18 (1962). Although traditional ‘‘commonlaw’’ meth- ods for determining foreign-country law have proved inadequate, the courts have not developed more appro- priate practices on the basis of this flexible rule. Cf. Xxxxx, op. cit. supra at 26–28. On the inadequacy of common-law procedures for determining foreign law, see, e.g., Xxxxxxxx, Proving the Law of Foreign Coun- tries, 3 Am.J.Comp.L. 60 (1954). Problems of foreign law that must be resolved in ac- cordance with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are most likely to arise in places such as Washington, D.C., the Canal Zone, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, where the federal courts have general criminal jurisdic- tion. However, issues of foreign law may also arise in criminal proceedings commenced in other federal dis- tricts. For example, in an extradition proceeding, rea- sonable ground to believe that the person sought to be extradited is charged with, or was convicted of, a crime under the laws of the demanding state must generally be shown. See Factor x. Xxxxxxxxxxxx, 290 U.S. 276 (1933); Xxxxxxxxx x. Xxxxxxxx, 268 U.S. 311 (1925); Xxxxxx Inter- national Law: Cases and Materials (2d ed. 1962). Fur- ther, foreign law may be invoked to justify non-compli-

Related to Foreign Law Determination

  • Effect of Later Determination In the event the parties agree or a court of competent jurisdiction determines (or the parties agree to settle with a consent determination) that a default is wrongful or not the fault of the Contractor, the termination shall be considered to be a Termination for Convenience and the sole remedy available to the Contractor shall be the contractual treatment of the termination as termination for convenience pursuant to Section 23.0 above and without any other damages or relief.

  • Salary Determination 12.5.1 A unit member shall receive a salary not less than the minimum salary nor more than the maximum salary (Articles 12.3 and 12.4) for the rank to which appointed, except as provided in Articles 4.15, 5.6, 10.6.1 or Article 10.6.1.1. The effective dates for salaries shall be the appropriate dates specified in Article 12.2.2.

  • Penalty Determination H&SC section 39619.7 requires CARB to provide information on the basis for the penalties it seeks. This Agreement includes this information, which is also summarized here. The provision of law the penalty is being assessed under and why that provision is most appropriate for that violation. The penalty provision being applied in this case is H&SC section 42402 et seq. because IIT sold, supplied, offered for sale, consumer products for commerce in California in violation of the Consumer Products Regulations (17 CCR section 94507 et seq.). The penalty provisions of H&SC section 42402 et seq. apply to violations of the Consumer Products Regulations because the regulations were adopted under authority of H&SC section 41712, which is in Part 4 of Division 26. The manner in which the penalty amount was determined, including aggravating and mitigating factors and per unit or per vehicle basis for the penalty. H&SC section 42402 et seq. provides strict liability penalties of up to $10,000 per day for violations of the Consumer Product Regulations with each day being a separate violation. In cases like this, involving unintentional violations of the Consumer Products Regulations where the violator cooperates with the investigation, CARB has obtained penalties for selling uncertified charcoal lighter material in California. In this case, the total penalty is $7,500 for selling uncertified charcoal lighter material in California. The penalty in this case was reduced because this was a strict liability first-time violation and IIT made diligent efforts to cooperate with the investigation. To come into compliance, IIT no longer offers Safegel BBQ & Fireplace Lighting Gel Fire Starter for commerce in California. Final penalties were determined based on the unique circumstances of this matter, considered together with the need to remove any economic benefit from noncompliance, the goal of deterring future violations and obtaining swift compliance, the consideration of past penalties in similar negotiated cases, and the potential cost and risk associated with litigating these particular violations. The penalty reflects violations extending over a number of days resulting in quantifiable harm to the environment considered together with the complete circumstances of this case. Penalties in future cases might be smaller or larger on a per ton basis. The final penalty in this case was based in part on confidential financial information or confidential business information provided by IIT that is not retained by CARB in the ordinary course of business. The penalty in this case was also based on confidential settlement communications between CARB and IIT that CARB does not retain in the ordinary course of business. The penalty also reflects CARB’s assessment of the relative strength of its case against IIT, the desire to avoid the uncertainty, burden and expense of litigation, obtain swift compliance with the law and remove any unfair advantage that IIT may have secured from its actions. Is the penalty being assessed under a provision of law that prohibits the emission of pollution at a specified level, and, if so a quantification of excess emissions, if it is practicable to do so. The Consumer Product Regulations do not prohibit emissions above a specified level, but they do limit the concentration of VOCs in regulated products. In this case, a quantification of the excess emissions attributable to the violations was not practicable.

  • Eligibility Determination The State or its designee will make eligibility determinations for each of the HHSC HMO Programs.

  • Expert Determination If a Dispute relates to any aspect of the technology underlying the provision of the Goods and/or Services or otherwise relates to a financial technical or other aspect of a technical nature (as the Parties may agree) and the Dispute has not been resolved by discussion or mediation, then either Party may request (which request will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed) by written notice to the other that the Dispute is referred to an Expert for determination. The Expert shall be appointed by agreement in writing between the Parties, but in the event of a failure to agree within ten (10) Working Days, or if the person appointed is unable or unwilling to act, the Expert shall be appointed on the instructions of the relevant professional body. The Expert shall act on the following basis: he/she shall act as an expert and not as an arbitrator and shall act fairly and impartially; the Expert's determination shall (in the absence of a material failure to follow the agreed procedures) be final and binding on the Parties; the Expert shall decide the procedure to be followed in the determination and shall be requested to make his/her determination within thirty (30) Working Days of his appointment or as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter and the Parties shall assist and provide the documentation that the Expert requires for the purpose of the determination; any amount payable by one Party to another as a result of the Expert's determination shall be due and payable within twenty (20) Working Days of the Expert's determination being notified to the Parties; the process shall be conducted in private and shall be confidential; and the Expert shall determine how and by whom the costs of the determination, including his/her fees and expenses, are to be paid.

  • CERTIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT PRICE DETERMINATION By submission of this bid, the Bidder certifies, and in the case of a joint bid each party thereto certifies as to its own organization, that in connection with this procurement:

  • Adverse Benefit Determination An adverse benefit determination is any of the following:  Denial of a benefit (in whole or part),  Reduction of a benefit,  Termination of a benefit,  Failure to provide or make a payment (in whole or in part) for a benefit, and  Rescission of coverage, even if there is no adverse effect on any benefit. An appeal of an adverse benefit determination can be made either as an administrative appeal or as a medical appeal, as defined further in this section. Our Customer Service Department phone number is (000) 000-0000 or 0-000-000-0000.

  • Order of Benefit Determination Rules When a Member is covered by two or more plans, the rules for determining the order of benefit payments are as follows:

  • Benefit Level Two Health Care Network Determination Issues regarding the health care networks for the 2017 insurance year shall be negotiated in accordance with the following procedures:

  • INDEPENDENT PRICE DETERMINATION 6.1 By signing and submitting this bid, the Bidder certifies that the prices in this bid have been arrived at independently, without consultation, communication or agreement, for the purpose of restricting competition, as to any matter relating to such prices with any other Bidder or with any competitor; unless otherwise required by law, the prices which have been quoted in this bid have not been knowingly disclosed by the Bidder prior to bid opening directly or indirectly to any other Bidder or to any competitor; no attempt has been made, or will be made, by the Bidder to induce any person or firm to submit, or not to submit, a bid for the purpose of restricting competition.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!