Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In parliamentary procedure, reconsideration of a motion (or reconsideration of a question) may be done on a matter previously decided. The motion to "reconsider" is used for this purpose. This motion originated in the United States and is generally not used in parliaments. [1] [2] A special form of this motion is reconsider and enter on the ...
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Donate
While motions for reconsideration were immediately filed by numerous petitioners, including the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, they were all rejected with finality on April 22, 2014. [ 25 ] [ 26 ] However, justice Arturo Brion , who originally wrote a separate concurring opinion, changed his vote to dissent after reconsidering ...
A "motion to dismiss" asks the court to decide that a claim, even if true as stated, is not one for which the law offers a legal remedy.As an example, a claim that the defendant failed to greet the plaintiff while passing the latter on the street, insofar as no legal duty to do so may exist, would be dismissed for failure to state a valid claim: the court must assume the truth of the factual ...
The Manual covers motions, procedures, vote requirements, the rules of order, principles, precedents, and legal basis behind parliamentary law used by legislatures. The author, Paul Mason (1898–1985), was a scholar who worked for the California State Senate.
A motion can be taken from the table at the same session (or meeting) or at the next session (or meeting) if that session occurs within a quarterly time interval. [15] Otherwise, the motion dies. [15] The use of the motion to lay on the table to kill a motion is improper; instead, a motion to postpone indefinitely should be used. [12]
King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association v. Blackwell, 448 F. Supp. 2d 876 (S.D. Ohio 2006), is a court case filed on August 31, 2006 [1] to define if the Ohio Secretary of State at the time, Kenneth Blackwell, had violated the Civil Rights Act, first, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution through previous election procedure.
On March 31, 2009, the Court, by a vote of 7–5, denied the first motion for reconsideration. [3] The second motion for reconsideration was denied on April 28, 2009. [4] On December 21, 2009, the Court, by a vote of 6-4 reversed its November 18, 2008, decision and declared the Cityhood Laws as constitutional.