Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that decisions by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on how to regulate Internet service providers are eligible for Chevron deference, in which the judiciary defers to an administrative agency's expertise under its governing ...
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.
In essence, Roosevelt's Monroe Doctrine would be the basis for a use of economic and military hegemony to make the U.S. the dominant power in the Western Hemisphere. The new doctrine was a frank statement that the U.S. was willing to seek leverage over Latin American governments by acting as an international police power in the region. [7]
overturning prior precedent based on its negative effects or flaws in its reasoning; distinguishing a new principle that refines a prior principle, thus departing from prior practice without violating the rule of stare decisis; establishing a test or a measurable standard that can be applied by courts in future decisions.
Hyatt, the Court reiterated that, "[o]ur precedent differentiates the credit owed to laws (legislative measures and common law) and to judgments." [ 1 ] If the legal pronouncements of one state conflict with the public policy of another state, federal courts in the past have been reluctant to force a state to enforce the pronouncements of ...
What is now known as the Shawcross principle was the subject of debate in the UK Parliament on 29 January 1951. [3] In a lengthy defence of his conduct regarding an illegal strike, Attorney General Hartley Shawcross cited hundreds of years of precedent as to the firm foundation of his actions.
These past decisions are called "case law", or precedent. Stare decisis —a Latin phrase meaning "let the decision stand"—is the principle by which judges are bound to such past decisions, drawing on established judicial authority to formulate their positions.
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.