Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] EWHC J57 (QB), (1861) 1 B&S 393 is an English contract law case concerning the principle of privity of contract and consideration.Its panel of appeal judges reinforced that the doctrine of privity meant that only those who are party to an agreement (outside of one of the well-established exceptional relationships such as agency, bailment or trusteeship) may sue or be ...
The doctrine of precedent developed during the 12th and 13th centuries, [52] as the collective judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom and precedent. [ 53 ] The form of reasoning used in common law is known as casuistry or case-based reasoning .
Precedent is a judicial decision that serves as an authority for courts when deciding subsequent identical or similar cases. [1] [2] [3] Fundamental to common law legal systems, precedent operates under the principle of stare decisis ("to stand by things decided"), where past judicial decisions serve as case law to guide future rulings, thus promoting consistency and predictability.
The decision articulated a doctrine known as "Chevron deference". [2] Chevron deference consisted of a two-part test that was deferential to government agencies: first, whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise issue at question, and second, "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute".
A legal doctrine is a framework, set of rules, procedural steps, or test, often established through precedent in the common law, through which judgments can be determined in a given legal case. For example, a doctrine comes about when a judge makes a ruling where a process is outlined and applied, and allows for it to be equally applied to like ...
Farah Constructions v Say-Dee Pty Ltd, also known as Farah, is a decision of the High Court of Australia. [1] The case was influential in developing Australian legal doctrines relating to equity, property, unjust enrichment, and constructive trusts, [2] as well as the doctrine of precedent as it applies in Australia.
Kable v DPP, [1] is a decision of the High Court of Australia.It is a significant case in Australian constitutional law. The case is notable for having established the 'Kable Doctrine', a precept in Australian law with relevance to numerous important legal issues; including the separation of powers, parliamentary sovereignty, Australian federalism, and the judicial role.
In common law jurisdictions, the principle of res judicata may be asserted either by a judge or a defendant.. Once a final judgment has been handed down in a lawsuit, subsequent judges who are confronted with a suit that is identical to or substantially the same as the earlier one will apply the res judicata doctrine to preserve the effect of the first judgment.