Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005), is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 20, 2005. In a majority opinion authored by Justice David Souter, the Court held 5–4 that the petitioner, convicted murderer Ronald Rompilla, had received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his lawyer's failure to adequately investigate and obtain evidence that the lawyer knew ...
A promise conditioned upon an event within the promisor's control is not illusory if the promisor also "impliedly promises to make reasonable effort to bring the event about or to use good faith and honest judgment in determining whether or not it has in fact occurred." [3] Methods of finding potentially illusory contracts enforceable include:
Title I: Reasonable Efforts and Safety Requirements for Foster Care and Adoption Placements: Requires that States move to terminate parental rights for children who have been in Foster Care for 15 out of the last 22 months; Exceptions to the 15/22 rule include: When the child is in a Foster Home with a biological relative (Kinship Care)
Requiring states to make reasonable efforts to keep siblings together in foster care placements. Allowing, for the first time, tribes to receive federal funding to directly administer their own child welfare programs (previously, tribes had to negotiate with states to receive IV-E funding).
In law, a reasonable person, reasonable man, sometimes referred to situationally, [1] is a hypothetical person whose character and care conduct, under any common set of facts, is decided through reasoning of good practice or policy. [2] [3] It is a legal fiction [4] crafted by the courts and communicated through case law and jury instructions. [5]
Supererogation (Late Latin: supererogatio "payment beyond what is needed or asked", from super "beyond" and erogare "to pay out, expend", itself from ex "out" and rogare "to ask") is the performance of more than is asked for; the action of doing more than duty requires. [1]
The avoidable consequences rule is a concept in United States jurisprudence which comes from a common-law rule barring recovery of damages that a tort victim "could have avoided by the use of reasonable effort or expenditure after the commission of the tort."
Due diligence in civil procedure is the idea that reasonable investigation is necessary before certain kinds of relief are requested. For example, duly diligent efforts to locate and/or serve a party with civil process is frequently a requirement for a party seeking to use means other than personal service to obtain