Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Many common-law supreme courts, like the United States Supreme Court, use a similar system, whereby the court vacates the decision of the lower court and remands the case for retrial in a lower court consistent with the decision of the supreme court. Where the system differs is that in legal systems such as the American federal courts, mid-tier ...
Société Plon et autres v. Pierre Hugo et autres, 04–15.543 Arrêt n° 125 (Jan. 30, 2007), is a decision by the First Civil Chamber of the Cour de Cassation (the high court in France) which ruled that François Cérésa's adaptations/sequels of Les Misérables do not per se violate the droit moral of its author Victor Hugo and his estate. [1]
The building of the Court of Cassation. The prosecution, or parquet général, is headed by the Chief Prosecutor (procureur général). [c] The Chief Prosecutor is a judicial officer, but does not prosecute cases; instead, his function is to advise the Court on how to proceed, analogous to the Commissioner-in-Council's [d] role within the Conseil d'État (lit.
Under the agreement the Sultan of Sulu either ceded or leased land in North Borneo to the BNBC, which agreed to pay the Sultan and his heirs an annual fee. [3] [a] After its formation in 1963, Malaysia, [5] as the successor to the BNBC, paid the heirs of the Sulu Sultanate an annual fee until the 2013 Lahad Datu standoff. [3]
Its conclusion that courts must examine the entire record of an agency's decision established the "hard look" doctrine further expanded upon by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell. [7] The "no law to apply doctrine" that originated from Overton Park "engenders confusion among courts and commentators" due to its ambiguity. [4]
Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U.S. 238 (1889), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court dealing with the validity of Spanish or Mexican land grants in the Mexican Cession, the region of the present day southwestern United States that was ceded to the U.S. by Mexico in 1848 under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
Oyama v. State of California, 332 U.S. 633 (1948) was a United States Supreme Court decision that ruled that specific provisions of the 1913 and 1920 California Alien Land Laws abridged the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to Fred Oyama, a U.S. citizen in whose name his father, a Japanese citizen, had purchased land.
Tulk v Moxhay is a landmark English land law case which decided that in certain cases a restrictive covenant can "run with the land" (i.e. a future owner will be subject to the restriction) in equity.