The phrase "alleged requirement" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing a requirement that is claimed or asserted but not yet proven or confirmed.
Example: "The alleged requirement for additional documentation has raised concerns among the team about its validity."
Alternatives: "supposed requirement" or "claimed requirement".
The suit alleged that the requirement would unconstitutionally restrict the availability of abortions in the state, violate the Constitution's due process guarantee and unconstitutionally treat doctors who perform abortions differently from other doctors.
After petitioner denied respondent Citizens for a Better Environment (CBE) (a nonprofit environmental-protection organization) a solicitation permit because it could not meet the ordinance's 75-percent requirement, CBE sued petitioner in Federal District Court, alleging that such requirement violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
Other considerations apart, such an approach might mean that crimes were dealt with expeditiously rather than withholding alleged evidence for the requirements of a court and waiting for a decade, after which memories could fade and key witnesses may have died.
The Court relies on United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974), and Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208 (1974), to support the distinction between the two Clauses, noting that those cases involved alleged deviations from the requirements of Art.
Biofuel crops continue to be promoted and planted worldwide despite questions concerning their adverse environmental impacts, inability to meet energy needs or emission requirements, and alleged non-profitability [1], [2], [3], [4].
Because federal Medicaid law requires states to cover all members of any group of residents they choose to cover, they cannot impose extra eligibility requirements, the organizations alleged.
In January, Zachary's parents, Brian and Karen Cohn, filed their lawsuit in Stamford Superior Court against Shoreline, the town of Greenwich and Aberdeen Properties in Greenwich, which built their home and hired Shoreline to build the pool, alleging that safety requirements were ignored.
Shane Martin is alleged to have failed minimum character requirements and been placed in custody by Australian Border Force officials and New South Wales police.
Among the schemes alleged was a plan to evade a requirement that the company hire businesses owned by women on a big city project by using a front to funnel money to a mob-connected trucking executive.
This understanding of Rule 10b-5 was reinforced when Investors Management Co., 44 S.E.C. 633, 643 (1971), specifically rejected the contention that a "special relationship" between the alleged violator and an "insider" source was a necessary requirement for liability.
