The verdict Sample Clauses

The verdict. In its decision of 14th December 2016, the District Court found in favour of Ukraine and held the following: · the loan agreement between the Crimean Museums and the AP Museum is dissolved; · the AP Museum shall transfer the loaned objects to the National Historical Museum of Ukraine in Kiev in its capacity as custodian of the Crimean objects designated by the Ukrainian State; · pending an appeal, the artefacts shall remain in storage at the AP Museum; · Ukraine shall pay storage and insurance costs to the AP Museum.50 As noted above, in January 2017, the Crimean Museums lodged an appeal.51 4 Discussion of alternative approaches The outcome of the case confirms the view that the system of the 1970 UNESCO Convention for cross-border return claims is an interstate affair, with a focus on the protection of national interests. Might there have been other approaches? 4.1 The 1954 Hague Convention Surprisingly, the 1954 Hague Convention is not mentioned in the verdict. Given the fact that this Convention and its Protocol are specifically aimed at situations of armed conflict and occupation, Netherlands and Ukraine are both parties and its principles are generally considered as binding customary international law, one may wonder why not.52 The central provision is that states ‘undertake to prohibit, prevent and, if necessary, put a stop to any form of theft, pillage or misappropriation of, 50 Verdict (n. 1) 4.20, 5. 51 According to the representative of Ukraine, X.X. van den Xxxxx, the case was scheduled for ‘Grieven’ (complaint by the Crimean Museums) in the summer of 2017. 52 On the customary international law status, see, for example, X.X. Xxxxxxxx, Art Treasures and War (1998) Institute of Art and Law; Stamatoudi (2011) 235; A. Chechi, The Settlement of International Cultural Heritage Disputes (2014) Oxford University Press, 258; Xxxxxxxxxx (2015) 265. It is problematic in this context that the Russian Federation does not accept these principles, and adopted the Law on Removed Cultural Property (Federal Law on Cultural Valuables Displaced to the U.S.S.R. as a Result of the Second World War and Located on the Territory of the Russian Federation (1998) No 64-FZ). The Law declares to be the proper- ty of the Russian Federation all cultural valuables located in the territory of the Russian Federation that were brought into the USSR following the Second World War by way of exercise of the right of the USSR to compensatory restitution. and any acts of vandalism dir...
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
The verdict. Most high-low agreements are entered to eliminate the risk of an extreme verdict, and to end the litigation. In light of these goals, parties are well served to include a provision that resolves litigation in the event that there is no verdict. This can result from a mistrial, a nonsuit or a hung jury. Of course, the parties can provide that, if there is no verdict, there is no high-low agreement. Indeed, if the parties do not address the issue, it is implied as a high-low is impossible to enforce without a verdict absent a specific provision providing for resolution in the event of a hung jury or mistrial. Some parties enter into high-lows because they are convinced that they will reap the better of the bargain. But if the case “turns south,” either during trial or as evidenced by the verdict, can a party take steps to avoid the high-low? Can a plaintiff nonsuit? Can either party move for a mistrial or for a new trial? Can a party intentionally “draw the foul” to cause a mistrial? As all but the last of these legal maneuvers are perfectly legitimate, is there anything to prohibit a party from taking advantage of them? The answer likely depends on whether there is a jury verdict.

Related to The verdict

  • Stipulation The undersigned stipulates and agrees to the above findings fact and conclusions of law and waives its rights to administrative hearing and judicial review of the Commissioner’s Order.

  • Hearing The grievance shall be heard by a single arbitrator and both parties may be represented by such person or persons as they may choose and designate, and the parties shall have the right to a hearing at which time both parties will have the opportunity to submit evidence, offer testimony, and make oral or written arguments relating to the issues before the arbitrator. The proceeding before the arbitrator shall be a hearing denovo.

  • Arbitrator's Jurisdiction The arbitrator shall take such evidence as in his judgment is appropriate for resolution of the dispute; however, he shall confine himself to the issues for arbitration and shall have no authority to determine any other issue not so submitted which is not directly essential to reaching a determination on the dispute at hand. The arbitrator shall have no power to recommend any right or relief for any period of time prior to the effective date of the Agreement under which the grievance was initiated. In those issues wherein the grievant’s relief sought involves back pay or lost wages covering a period of an Employee’s payroll separation due to suspension or discharge, the amount of the award shall be less any unemployment compensation or interim earnings, received by the aggrieved Employee. Second jobs or sources of income which the Employee received while under employment will not be considered interim income and will not be deducted when awarding lost wages or back pay. The decision of the arbitrator shall be submitted in writing to the parties within thirty (30) calendar days of the hearing’s conclusion unless the deadline is mutually extended by the parties. The decision and award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the Union, its members, the aggrieved Employee(s) and the CITY. With respect to grievances involving misapplication or misinterpretation of this Agreement, the grievance and arbitration procedure contained in this Article shall be the sole and exclusive remedy available to employees, and the parties hereto as this procedure is intended to supersede all conflicting provisions of the Ohio Revised Code regarding any and all matters subject to the grievance procedures of this Contract or otherwise made subject to this Agreement. With respect to grievances involving disciplinary suspensions, demotions or dismissals the election of remedies, as set forth above, shall be mutually exclusive. Choice of binding arbitration shall thereafter preclude appeal to Civil Service or to Court. Appeal to Civil Service shall preclude access to binding arbitration. With respect to cases of suspension, demotion and discharge, the arbitrator shall decide:

  • No Injunction No litigation, statute, rule, regulation, executive order, decree, ruling or injunction shall have been enacted, entered, promulgated or endorsed by or in any court or governmental authority of competent jurisdiction or any self-regulatory organization having authority over the matters contemplated hereby, which prohibits the consummation of any of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement or the Warrant Agreement.

  • Right to Injunction Executive acknowledges that a breach of the covenants set forth in Section 10 hereof will cause irreparable damage to the Company with respect to which the Company’s remedy at law for damages will be inadequate. Therefore, in the event of breach or anticipatory breach of the covenants set forth in this section by Executive, Executive and the Company agree that the Company shall be entitled to seek the following particular forms of relief, in addition to remedies otherwise available to it at law or equity: (A) injunctions, both preliminary and permanent, enjoining or restraining such breach or anticipatory breach and Executive hereby consents to the issuance thereof forthwith and without bond by any court of competent jurisdiction; and (B) recovery of all reasonable sums as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction expended and costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred by the Company to enforce the covenants set forth in this section.

  • No Authority to Bind Neither party has the power or authority to bind the other party to contracts or other obligations.

  • No Lawsuits No suit, action or other proceeding or investigation shall be threatened or pending before or by any Court or Government concerning this Agreement or the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby. No Government shall have threatened or directed any request for information concerning this Agreement, the transactions contemplated hereby or the consequences or implications of such transactions to Buyer, to Seller, or to any officer, director, employee or agent of it.

  • Stipulated Facts For purposes of this Agreement only, the following constitutes a summary of facts by the EPA and SCDHEC upon which this Agreement is based. A. The DOE owns and operates the SRS. The SRS produces plutonium, tritium, and other special nuclear materials for national defense, for other governmental uses, and for civilian uses. The SRS is the nation's primary source of reactor-produced nuclear defense materials. Construction of the SRS began in 1951. The SRS is located near Aiken, South Carolina, and is approximately twenty-five (25) miles southeast of Augusta, Georgia. The SRS encompasses approximately three hundred (300) square miles. B. In March 1979, the SRS discontinued operation of seven (7) chemical, metal, and pesticide disposal pits. In 1984, under the approval and supervision of the State of South Carolina, the SRS excavated these pits and removed contaminated material. Additional groundwater monitoring xxxxx were installed. C. On December 19, 1979, pursuant to the State of South Carolina's regulations, the SRS notified the SCDHEC of SRS's hazardous waste management activities. The SRS submitted a copy of its notification to the EPA. D. In August 1980, pursuant to Section 3010 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6910, the SRS notified EPA of SRS's hazardous waste management activities and submitted a copy of the notification to the SCDHEC. E. On September 29, 1980, the SRS submitted "Part A" of its hazardous waste management permit application to the SCDHEC and EPA. Since that time, the SRS has modified its "Part A" to include new units or modifications to existing units. The SRS submitted "Part B" of its permit application on February 11, 1985. F. In February 1984, the SRS began groundwater corrective/remedial action by the use of an air stripper at the SRS M-Area. G. On May 8, 1984, the SRS prepared an assessment of its waste disposal sites and groundwater impacts (Technical Summary Groundwater Quality Protection Program at Savannah River Plant). H. On May 31, 1984, the DOE notified the EPA of potential CERCLA sites at DOE facilities, including the SRS. I. On January 7, 1987, the SRS submitted to EPA a document entitled, "Waste Management Units - Savannah River Plant," which contained a listing of solid waste management units (SWMUs) on the SRS. The SWMUs list is revised annually and provided to EPA and SCDHEC. J. On September 30, 1987, the SCDHEC and EPA issued a RCRA permit for the SRS. The Federal RCRA permit requires the SRS to initiate RFIs for listed SWMUs under the authority of RCRA Sections 3004(u) and (v). The State Hazardous Waste permit contains similar conditions under Section 44-56- 10, et seq., of the Hazardous Waste Management Act. The list of SWMUs was revised on May 30, 1990, to include a total of eighty-one (81) SWMUs. K. On October 16, 1987, the SRS submitted to EPA draft Hazard Ranking System (HRS) scores and supporting information for sixty-six (66) potential sites on the SRS. On April 28, 1988, the SRS submitted to EPA its Preliminary Assessments for these sites. L. In December 1987, the SRS published its final environmental impact statement (EIS), entitled, "Waste Management Activities for Groundwater Protection: Savannah River Plant; Aiken, South Carolina." The purpose of the EIS was to identify and select a waste management strategy for the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous, radioactive, and mixed wastes. M. On May 2, 1988, the SRS submitted an RFI Program Plan to EPA and SCDHEC pursuant to its RCRA permit. On September 6, 1989, EPA conditionally approved the RFI Program Plan. N. On July 14, 1989, EPA proposed the SRS for inclusion on the NPL at 40 CFR Part 300 (54 Federal Register 29820). O. On November 21, 1989, EPA finalized the SRS on the NPL at 40 CFR Part 300 (54 Federal Register 48184), which became effective on December 21, 1989. P. The SRS is engaged in the generation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes as defined in RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901, et seq., and as defined in the HWMA, S.C. Code Xxx. §§ 44-56-10, et seq. (Supp 1988). Q. The SRS releases, has released, and threatens to release hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants into the environment, as defined in CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601, et seq. R. Hazardous constituents, as defined by RCRA, and hazardous substances as defined by CERCLA, are present in the environment at the SRS.

  • No Authority to Bind Company Consultant acknowledges and agrees that Consultant and its Assistants have no authority to enter into contracts that bind the Company or create obligations on the part of the Company without the prior written authorization of the Company.

  • Arbitrator's Authority A. The arbitrator shall have no right to amend, modify, nullify, ignore, add to or subtract from the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The arbitrator shall consider and decide only the specific issue(s) submitted in writing by the Employer and the Union, and shall have no authority to make a decision on any other issue not so submitted. B. The arbitrator shall be without power to make decisions contrary to, or inconsistent with, or modifying or varying in any way the application of laws, rules, or regulations having the force and effect of law. The arbitrator's decision shall be submitted in writing within thirty (30) days following close of the hearing or the submission of briefs by the parties, which ever be later, unless the parties agree to an extension. The decision shall be binding on both the Employer and the Union and shall be based solely on the arbitrator's interpretation or application of the express terms of this Agreement and to the facts of the grievance presented. C. The fees and expenses for the arbitrator's services and proceedings shall be borne equally by the Employer and the Union provided that each party shall be responsible for compensating its own representatives and witnesses. If either party desires a verbatim record of the proceedings, it may cause such a record to be made, providing it pays for the record. If both parties desire a verbatim record of the proceedings, the cost shall be shared equally.

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