"court usage" is a valid phrase that can be used in written English.
It refers to language or terminology commonly used in a court of law. This phrase can be used when discussing the specific language or jargon used in legal proceedings or documents. Example: "In court, it is important to use appropriate court usage to ensure clear and accurate communication between all parties involved."
On top of that, Truecaller is on the majority of java phones and we recently launched a SMS application, and it is now exploring USSD, all areas where Twitter has also been active in courting usage among those who are not yet using smartphones (and Twitter apps), or do not have reliable access to mobile data and are therefore stuck on 2G.
The choice of standard was not made definitively, however, until the late 17th century, when, with political power and social influence centred exclusively at the royal court, the only acceptable usage became that of the court.
They consider, e.g. size or complexity of insolvency Significant personal liability Austria (Konkursverfahren) Court Determine potential future usage (reorganization; liquidation) Creditors Variable, percentage of proceeds realized in the insolvency.
Significant personal liability Great Britain (administration procedure) Court Determine potential future usage (reorganization; company voluntary arrangement; liquidation) Creditors (under supervision of the court) Creditors decide about fix (time basis) or variable (percentage of proceeds) remuneration.
As well as the ongoing costs of running the helpline (£90,000 a year), they cited "its effectiveness and usage among the courts".
But just because someone doesn't take a case to court doesn't mean that the usage is not illegal".
In Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Stroh Brewery Co., the court rejected as irrelevant the generic usage of the phrase "L.A. beer" in Australia for Low-alcohol beer.
Although TSR took legal action against several publishers in an attempt to restrict third-party usage, it never brought any court cases to completion, instead settling out of court in every instance.
We designed this pricing structure to mimic utility pricing models and to encourage usage and adoption among courts.
