Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The doctrine of necessity is the basis on which extraordinary actions by administrative authority, which are designed to restore order or uphold fundamental constitutional principles, are considered to be lawful even if such an action contravenes established constitution, laws, norms, or conventions.
In English law, the defence of necessity recognises that there may be situations of such overwhelming urgency that a person must be allowed to respond by breaking the law. There have been very few cases in which the defence of necessity has succeeded, and in general terms there are very few situations where such a defence could even be applicable.
Emergency law/right (nødret, nødrett) is the equivalent of necessity in Denmark and Norway.[1] [2] It is considered related to but separate from self-defence.Common legal examples of necessity includes: breaking windows and other objects in order to escape a fire, commandeering a vehicle to serve as an emergency ambulance, ignoring traffic rules while rushing a dying patient to a hospital ...
In tort common law, the defense of necessity gives the state or an individual a privilege to take or use the property of another. A defendant typically invokes the defense of necessity only against the intentional torts of trespass to chattels , trespass to land , or conversion .
In logic and mathematics, necessity and sufficiency are terms used to describe a conditional or implicational relationship between two statements. For example, in the conditional statement : "If P then Q ", Q is necessary for P , because the truth of Q is guaranteed by the truth of P .
Opinio juris sive necessitatis ("an opinion of law or necessity") also simply opinio juris ("an opinion of law") is the belief that an action was carried out as a legal obligation. This is in contrast to an action resulting from cognitive reaction or behaviors habitual to an individual.
1846, Second report favoured leaving questions of necessity to the royal prerogative of clemency (draft Art. 19); 1878–1879 also declined to codify as it was "better to leave such questions to be dealt with when, if ever, they arise in practice by applying the principles of law to the circumstance of the particular case." [30]
The 2012 Florida Statutes lay measurable conditions to determine if the "fear of imminent peril" is reasonable under the law. [7] Both the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Law Commission (ILC) have recognized the profound motivations of one's lawful fear of imminent peril and have adopted measures to define ...