Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Non-retroactivity is the legal principle that laws do not apply retroactively and ex post facto laws are forbidden. This principle may be applied to judicial decisions as well as statutory law. This principle may be applied to judicial decisions as well as statutory law.
Retroactive application of law is prohibited by the Article 3 of the Polish civil code, and the legal rule prohibiting such retroactive application is commonly memorised as a Latin sentence Lex retro non agit ("A law does not apply retroactively"). The said article, however, allows retroactive application of an Act of Parliament if it is ...
Several merchant groups challenged the rule in 2011 in NACS v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System , saying that the fee cap had been set too high. The district judge ruled that the Board had not reasonably complied with the Durbin amendment , but the D.C. Circuit reversed on appeal, upholding the regulation as within the agency's ...
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the application of newly announced rules of law in habeas corpus proceedings. This case addresses the Federal Court's threshold standard of deciding whether Constitutional claims will be heard.
Enrolled bill rule; Enterprise liability; Equal authenticity rule; Equity (law) Erga omnes; Erie doctrine; Essential facilities doctrine; Estoppel; Evasion (law) Everything which is not forbidden is allowed; Ex turpi causa non oritur actio; Exceptional circumstances; Exclusionary rule; Executive privilege; Exhausted combination doctrine ...
The Court reasoned that selective application of new rules violated the principle of treating similarly situated defendants on an equal basis. The Court also refused to make an exception to the rule of retroactivity in cases where there was a "clean break" with past precedent.
The decision of the court was based on two consolidated cases, Jackson v.Hobbs, No. 10-9647, and Miller v.Alabama, No. 10-9646. [5] The Los Angeles Times wrote: "In one case that came before the court, Kuntrell Jackson was 14 in November 18, 1999 when he and two other teenagers went to a video store in Arkansas planning to rob it. [6]
Birchfield was a consolidation of three cases: Birchfield v.North Dakota, Bernard v.Minnesota, and Beylund v.Levi.Birchfield was charged with violation of a North Dakota statute for refusing to submit to blood alcohol content testing; Bernard was charged with a violation of a Minnesota statute for refusing to submit to breath alcohol testing; Beylund underwent a blood alcohol test consistent ...