Facial Challenge definition

Facial Challenge means a challenge to a requirement that is based on an argument that the requirement cannot be applied fairly or reasonably in any situation. By contrast, an as-applied challenge is one based on an argument that a requirement should not be applied to the challenger’s particular situation because of factors that, in the challenger’s view, distinguish it from similar situations.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3
Facial Challenge means a challenge to a requirement that is based on an argument that the requirement cannot be applied fairly or reasonably in any situation. By contrast, an as- applied challenge is one based on an argument that a requirement should not be applied to the challenger’s particular situation because of factors that, in the challenger’s view, distinguish it from similar situations.CD. [Unchanged.] 9. Administrative Review and AppealA person may request reconsideration of a BES decision through administrative review as described in this Section. After the requestor has exhausted all BES administrative review, the requestor may file for an appeal of a decision with the Code Hearings Officer (CHO) per Portland City Code Title 22. A person may only appeal a decision that is subject to administrative review by BES.A. Administrative Review Requests. A person to whom a notice was addressed will have 20 business days from the date the notice was issued to submit a written request for administrative review of a decision described in the notice. The requestor must provide all information known to the requestor that supports an assertion made in the written request for administrative review. The requestor must provide such information via graphic, written, or recorded communication, or in person at the administrative review meeting. BES will hold an administrative review meeting within 15 business days of receipt of the written request for administrative review unless BES determines that extenuating circumstances justify a reasonably longer time frame or the requestor asks BES to delay the meetingBES determines in its reasonable discretion that a delay is justified. The requestor may provide detailed information in writing in lieu of attending the administrative review meeting.B. Non-Reviewable Items. A BES decision made under these rules is subject to administrative review except that BES will not grant administrative review of the following:
Sample 1
Facial Challenge means a challenge to a requirement that is based on an argument that the requirement cannot be applied fairly or reasonably in any situation. By contrast, an
Sample 1Sample 2

Examples of Facial Challenge in a sentence

  • One participant reflected on this issue when asked about the flow of communication for students who benefit from interventions and supports.

  • While Rejecting a Facial Challenge to Indiana’s Voter ID Law, Recognized That Laws Like SB14 May Impose A “Heavier Burden” on Certain Subgroups of Voters, Including Some Older Voters.

  • Appellant’s Facial Challenge to the “Adequately Displayed” Provision.¶26 Appellant challenges the City’s requirement that a commercial transaction must be “adequately displayed” as unconstitutional on its face.

  • The District Court Did Not Convert Plaintiff’s Facial Challenge into an As-Applied Challenge for the Purposes of Summary Judgment.

  • On June 3, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File Post-Argument Brief on the Trial of Facial Challenge [#72], which Defendant opposed.

  • The Trial Court Did Not Apply the Correct Standard for a Facial Challenge.

  • Facial Challenge to Section 8-43-409¶ 30 “A law is void for vagueness where its prohibitions are not clearly defined.” People v.

  • After considering each aspect of the process individually, the Court then analyzes the disciplinary process as a whole.1. Facial Challenge to the Code At closing arguments before the Court, the plaintiff argued that Temple University lacks jurisdiction over students’ off-campus behavior and that the alleged behavior giving rise to the plaintiff’s expulsion was not covered by the claimed jurisdiction.

  • Soweto’s female comrades: Gender, youth and violence in South Africa’s township uprisings, 1984-1990.

  • And no one could reasonably claim that collecting one fee is unconstitutional simply because collection of another is forbidden.B. Petitioners’ Facial Challenge Defies Ordinary Principles Of Sound Judicial Administration And Restraint.In asking this Court nonetheless to declare that all fair share fees are always unconstitutional, petitioners bring a facial challenge of the most disfavored kind.Even in the First Amendment context, “[f]acial challenges are disfavored.” Wash.


More Definitions of Facial Challenge

Facial Challenge means a challenge to a requirement that is based on an argument that the requirement cannot be applied fairly or reasonably in any situation. By contrast, an as-applied challenge is one based on an argument that a requirement should not be applied to the challenger’s particular situation because of factors that, in the challenger’s view, distinguish it from similar situations. AB. [Unchanged.] BC. [Unchanged.] CD. [Unchanged.] DE. [Unchanged.] EF. [Unchanged.] FG. [Unchanged.] GH. [Unchanged.] HI. [Unchanged.] IJ. [Unchanged.] JK. [Unchanged.] KL. [Unchanged.] LM. [Unchanged.] MN. [Unchanged.] NO. [Unchanged.]
Sample 1
Facial Challenge means a challenge to a requirement that is based on an argument that the requirement cannot be applied fairly or reasonably in any situation. By contrast, an as- applied challenge is one based on an argument that a requirement should not be applied to the challenger’s particular situation because of factors that, in the challenger’s view, distinguish it from similar situations. 8. Connection EnforcementAny non-compliant property will be declared a public nuisance by BES and will be subject to the following enforcement actions:A. Notice to Remove Nuisance. BES will post a Notice to Remove Nuisance on a connection- delinquent property. Within five days of the posting, BES will mail a copy of the posted notice to the property owner or legal titleholder.
Sample 1
Facial Challenge means a challenge to a requirement that is based on an argument that the requirement cannot be applied fairly or reasonably in any situation. By contrast, an as- applied challenge is one based on an argument that a requirement should not be applied to the challenger’s particular situation because of factors that, in the challenger’s view, distinguish it from similar situations.EF. [Unchanged.] FG. [Unchanged.] GH. [Unchanged.] HI.[Unchanged.] IJ. [Unchanged.] 11. Administrative Review and AppealsRatepayers will have two opportunities at the City level to challenge decision making related to the ESC program: an internal BES Administrative Review and a formal appeal before the City Code Hearings Officer.A person may request reconsideration of a BES decision through administrative review as described in this Section. Administrative review and appeal of an enforcement action is also governed by BES Enforcement Program Administrative Rules, ENB- 4.15. After the requestor has exhausted all BES administrative review, the requestor may file for an appeal of a decision with the Code Hearings Officer (CHO) per Portland City Code Title 22. A person may only appeal a decision that is subject to administrative review by BES. A. Allowable Review and Appeal Items. Ratepayers may appeal BES regulations and decisions on any of the following matters:
Sample 1
Facial Challenge means a challenge to a requirement that is based on an argument that the requirement cannot be applied fairly or reasonably in any situation. By contrast, an as- applied challenge is one based on an argument that a requirement should not be applied to the challenger’s particular situation because of factors that, in the challenger’s view, distinguish it from similar situations.BC. “Owner-Occupant” means an owner who uses the property as his or hertheir primary residence. The individual who has the responsibility for assessments and is occupying the property will be considered the owner-occupant regardless of who holds the deed to the property. An owner who lived at the property before moving to a nursing home or similar facility is considered to be residing at the property if the property is not producing income.CD. [Unchanged.]11. Administrative Review and AppealA property owner may request reconsideration of a BES decision through administrative review as described in this Section. After the requestor has exhausted all BES administrative review, the requestor may file for an appeal of a decision with the Code Hearings Officer (CHO) per Portland City Code Title 22. A person may only appeal a decision that is subject to administrative review by BES.A. Administrative Review Requests. A person to whom a notice was addressed will have 20 business days from the date the notice was issued to submit a written request for administrative review of a decision described in the notice. The requestor must provide all information known to the requestor that supports an assertion made in the written request for administrative review. The requestor must provide such information via graphic, written, or recorded communication, or in person at the administrative review meeting. BES will hold an administrative review meeting within 15 business days of receipt of the written request for administrative review unless BES determines in its reasonable discretion that a delay is justified. The requestor may provide detailed information in writing in lieu of attending the administrative review meeting.Allowable Administrative Review and Appeal Items. Property owners may request administrative review and appeal on the following billing or enforcement decisions:
Sample 1
Facial Challenge concept does not create a “high hurdle” or change the burdens and standards govern- ing the issuance of a stay pending appeal Contrary to the majority’s reasoning, the plain- tiffs’ challenges may be more correctly described as a mixture of facial and as-applied challenges to the Secretary’s enforcement of state laws that thwart and burden the plaintiffs’ exercise of First Amendment political speech and associational rights in voter registration drives and get-out-the-vote campaigns. The majority’s conclusion that the plaintiffs cannot be making both a facial challenge and an as-applied challenge rests on a faulty premise. The concept of a facial challenge is not well settled and there is not one single test for all facial challenges; on the contra- ry, the Supreme Court’s decision in Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx v. FEC, 000 X. Xx. 000 (2010) has contradicted this erroneous idea. Rather, courts apply whatever consti- tutional doctrine is relevant to the claim in a particu- lar case. Id. at 919 (Xxxxxxx, X.X., concurring) (“[T]he debate over whether to consider this claim on an as- applied or facial basis strikes me as largely beside the point. . . . Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx has a constitutional claim . . . [and][t]he Government has a defense. Wheth- er the claim or the defense prevails is the question before us.”)). “[T]he distinction between facial and as- applied challenges is not so well defined that it has some automatic effect or that it must always control the pleadings and disposition in every case involving a constitutional challenge.” Id. at 893 (majority opinion) (citing, inter alia, Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxx, Xx., As- Applied Challenges and Third-Party Standing, 113 Harv. L. Rev. 1321, 1339 (2000) (“[O]nce a case is brought, no general categorical line bars a court from making broader pronouncements of invalidity in properly ‘as-applied’ cases.”)). The real significance of the facial/as-applied distinction, the Supreme Court has explained, is that “it goes to the breadth of the remedy employed by the Court[.]” Id. In other words, the facial invalidation of a statute is a broader remedy than an as-applied invalidation. The remedy in a successful facial challenge is an order barring en- forcement of the law in all circumstances, whereas in an as-applied challenge, the remedy is an order barring enforcement in some particular set of circum- stances. See id. Likewise, the “no set of circumstances test” that the majority appears to employ to the plaintiffs’ facial challenge lacks...
Sample 1

Related to Facial Challenge

  • Challenge means to appeal a ruling of the Chair.

  • upheld means that a complaint has been finalised wholly or partially in favour of the complainant and that –

  • Diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder means medically necessary assessments, evaluations, or tests

  • Patent Challenge means a challenge to the validity, patentability, enforceability and/or non-infringement of any of the Licensed Patents or otherwise opposing any of the Licensed Patents.

  • Complaint Investigation means an investigation of any complaint that has been made to a proper authority that is not covered by an abuse investigation.

  • Allegation means any written or oral statement or other indication of possible scholarly misconduct made to an institutional official.

  • Competent and reliable scientific evidence means tests, analyses, research, studies, or other evidence based on the expertise of professionals in the relevant area, that has been conducted and evaluated in an objective manner by persons qualified to do so, using procedures generally accepted in the profession to yield accurate and reliable results.

  • Diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders means assessments, evaluations, or tests, including the autism diagnostic observation schedule, performed by a licensed physician or a licensed psychologist to diagnose whether an individual has 1 of the autism spectrum disorders.

  • Professional Judgement shall be defined as judgement that is informed by professional knowledge of curriculum expectations, context, evidence of learning, methods of instruction and assessment, and the criteria and standards that indicate success in student learning. In professional practice, judgement involves a purposeful and systematic thinking process that evolves in terms of accuracy and insight with ongoing reflection and self-correction.

  • Inappropriate use means a use that is inconsistent with an educational purpose or that is in clear violation of this policy and the Acceptable Use Agreement.

  • Contest shall have the meaning set forth in Section 25.03.

  • Lawsuit means any lawsuit, arbitration or other dispute resolution filed by either party herein pertaining to any of this Warrant, the Facility Agreement and the Registration Rights Agreement.

  • Complex or chronic medical condition means a physical,

  • Expungement , as used in section 19-1-306, means the designation of juvenile delinquency records whereby such records are deemed never to have existed.

  • Reasonable medical judgment means a medical judgment that would be made by a reasonably prudent physician, knowledgeable about the case and the treatment possibilities with respect to the medical conditions involved.

  • Probation or parole means any kind of supervision or conditional release of juveniles authorized under the laws of the compacting states.

  • Stability means structural stability.

  • Competent Body means any body that has authority to issue standards or recommendations with which either Party must comply Conditions Precedent means the conditions precedent, if any, to commencement of service delivery referred to in clause A3.2 (Commencement and Duration) and set out in Appendix B (Conditions Precedent)

  • Medical condition means either of the following:

  • Outcome means a job/training or placement outcome after the Start Date; and a Participant has been in employment/training/placement and Off-Benefit each week; and there has been an either continuous or cumulative individual period of employment/training/placement (Outcome payment trigger point) as detailed in the Specification for each Participant Group].

  • Outcomes means the Health and Wellbeing Outcomes prescribed by the Scottish Ministers in Regulations under section 5(1) of the Act;

  • Trial preparation record means any record that contains information that is specifically compiled in reasonable anticipation of, or in defense of, a civil or criminal action or proceeding, including the independent thought processes and personal trial preparation of an attorney.

  • Defense shall include investigations of any threatened, pending or completed action, suit or proceeding as well as appeals thereof and shall also include any defensive assertion of a cross-claim or counterclaim;

  • Conclusion Applicants assert that, for the reasons summarized above, the requested exemptions are appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the 1940 Act. For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority. Xxxxxxxxx Variable Products Series Fund, et al. File No. 812-11698 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Release No. IC-24079 1999 SEC LEXIS 2177 October 13, 1999 ACTION: Order Granting Exemptions TEXT: Xxxxxxxxx Variable Products Series Fund (“Xxxxxxxxx Trust”), Franklin Xxxxxxxxx Variable Insurance Products Trust (“VIP Trust”), Xxxxxxxxx Funds Annuity Company (“TFAC”) or any successor to TFAC, and any future open-end investment company for which TFAC or any affiliate is the administrator, sub-administrator, investment manager, adviser, principal underwriter, or sponsor (“Future Funds”) filed an application on July 14, 1999, and an amendment on September 17, 1999 seeking an amended order of the Commission pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“1940 Act”) exempting them from the provisions of Sections 9(a), 13(a), 15(a) and 15(b) of the 1940 Act and Rules 6e-2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15). The prior order (Rel. No. IC-19879) granted exemptive relief to permit shares of the Xxxxxxxxx Trust to be sold to and held by variable annuity and variable life insurance separate accounts of both affiliated and unaffiliated life insurance companies. The proposed relief would amend the prior order to add as parties to that order the VIP Trust and any Future Funds and to permit shares of the Xxxxxxxxx Trust, the VIP Trust, and Future Funds to be issued to and held by qualified pension and retirement plans outside the separate account context. A notice of the filing of the application was issued on September 17, 1999 (Rel. No. IC-24018). The notice gave interested persons an opportunity to request a hearing and stated that an order granting the application would be issued unless a hearing should be ordered. No request for a hearing has been filed, and the Commission has not ordered a hearing. The matter has been considered, and it is found that granting the requested exemptions is appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes intended by the policy and provisions of the 1940 Act. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 1940 Act, that the requested exemptions from Sections 9(a), 13(a), 15(a) and 15(b) of the 1940 Act, and Rules 6e-2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15) thereunder, be, and hereby are, granted, effective forthwith. For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.

  • Serious Medical Condition means all of the following medical conditions:

  • Adjudicatory proceeding means a contested case, a proceeding that may culminate in a contested case, a petition for declaratory order, a petition for expedited resolution of a negotiability dispute, or any other proceeding which may require the board or its designee to issue a decision, order, or ruling.