BY THE COURT Clause Samples

The "BY THE COURT" clause indicates that a particular order, judgment, or decision is being issued directly by the authority of the court itself, rather than by a specific judge or magistrate. In practice, this phrase is typically found at the end of court documents, signifying that the ruling is an official act of the court as an institution. Its core function is to formally attribute the legal force and authority of the decision to the court, ensuring clarity and legitimacy in judicial proceedings.
POPULAR SAMPLE Copied 2 times
BY THE COURT. The court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint if unnec- ▇▇▇▇▇▇ delay occurs in:
View SourceView Similar (4)
BY THE COURT. District Court Judge * (This standard judicial order has been approved by the FPPA Board of Directors, as allowed by law.)
View Source
BY THE COURT. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. Bucklo Dated: ______, 2006 EXHIBIT "B" IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, On Behalf of Herself : And All Others Similarly Situated, : No. 98-C-2178 : Plaintiff : ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. Bucklo : -against- : : HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL, INC., : HOUSEHOLD BANK, f.s.b, successor in interest : to BENEFICIAL NATIONAL BANK, : HOUSEHOLD TAX MASTERS, INC., formerly : known as BENEFICIAL TAX MASTERS, INC., : BENEFICIAL FRANCHISE COMPANY, INC., : H&R BLOCK, INC., H&R BLOCK SERVICES, : INC., H&R BLOCK TAX SERVICES, INC., : H&R BLOCK EASTERN TAX SERVICES, INC., : BLOCK FINANCIAL CORP., and HRB : ROYALTY, INC., : : Defendants. : ORDER OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL WITH RESPECT TO NOTICE, HEARING, AND ADMINISTRATION OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
View Source
BY THE COURT. On 14 June 2022, the National Court at Waigani dismissed, with costs, three actions instituted by respectively, the First Appellant, Fulleborne Extension Business Group (Inc), the Second Appellant, Extended Mengen Extension Business Group (Inc), and the Third Appellant, Ania Sawmill Business Group (Inc) against the Papua New Guinea Forest Authority, the State and certain officials of the State. In the National Court, those actions were, respectively, WS 20 of 2020, instituted by Fulleborne instituted on 8 May 2020, WS 14 of 2020, instituted by ▇▇▇▇▇▇ on 26 May 2020 and WS 4 of 2020, instituted by ▇▇▇▇ on 31 May 2020.
View Source
BY THE COURT. The agreement is to enter judgment for what may be due. The plaintiff has no right to decide the question. It is evident, from the terms of the agreement, that there was something to settle; and the plaintiff, either by arbitration, or by a jury, should have proceeded to make the settlement, with notice to the defendant, before he entered the judgment; or, at least before he issued the execution. The rule made absolute.
View Source
BY THE COURT. The ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇. Lindsay United States District Judge COUNSEL TO LONG RANGE SYSTEMS, INC. COUNSEL FOR NTN COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, LLP Texas Bar No. 10474900 The White House on Turtle Creek ▇▇▇▇▇ Liddell & ▇▇▇▇ LLP ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 75219 ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇) ▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇-▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇ (Telephone) Fax: (▇▇▇) ▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇-▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇ (Facsimile) By: By: --------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Of Counsel: ----------- ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ California Bar No. 137065 ▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ California Bar No. 197619 O'Melveny & ▇▇▇▇▇ LLP ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇-▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇ (Telephone) EXHIBIT B --------- ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (S.B. #137065) ▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (S.B. #197619) O'MELVENY & ▇▇▇▇▇ LLP ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ Telephone: (▇▇▇) ▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇ Facsimile: (▇▇▇) ▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇ Attorneys for Plaintiff, NTN COMMUNICATIONS, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NTN COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 03 CV 1042 LAB AJB Plaintiff, STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
View Source

Related to BY THE COURT

  • Continuing Jurisdiction of the Court The Parties agree that, after entry of Judgment, the Court will retain jurisdiction over the Parties, Action, and the Settlement solely for purposes of (i) enforcing this Agreement and/or Judgment, (ii) addressing settlement administration matters, and (iii) addressing such post-Judgment matters as are permitted by law.

  • Application to Court If (i) a claim for indemnification or advancement of Expenses is denied, in whole or in part, (ii) no disposition of such claim is made by the Company within ninety (90) days after the request therefore, (iii) the advancement of Expenses is not timely made pursuant to Section 6 of this Agreement or (iv) payment of indemnification is not made pursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement, the Indemnitee shall have the right to apply to the Delaware Court of Chancery, the court in which the Proceeding is or was pending, or any other court of competent jurisdiction, for the purpose of enforcing the Indemnitee’s right to indemnification (including the advancement of Expenses) pursuant to this Agreement.

  • Exclusive Forum The state and federal courts having jurisdiction over Stanford, California, United States of America, provide the exclusive forum for any court action between the parties relating to this Agreement. ***** submits to the jurisdiction of such courts, and waives any claim that such a court lacks jurisdiction over ***** or constitutes an inconvenient or improper forum.

  • Exclusive Jurisdiction and Venue The parties agree that the Courts of the County of Orange, State of California shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction and venue for the resolution of all disputes arising under the terms of this Agreement and the transactions contemplated herein.

  • Venue The Superior Court of California, located in the County of Sacramento, shall hear any dispute between the Parties arising from this Settlement Agreement.