Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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. The principle (or doctrine) states:
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.
A legal doctrine is a framework, set of rules, procedural steps, or test, often established through precedent in the common law, through which judgments can be determined in a given legal case. For example, a doctrine comes about when a judge makes a ruling where a process is outlined and applied, and allows for it to be equally applied to like ...
The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted the Case or Controversy Clause of Article III of the United States Constitution (found in Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) as embodying two distinct limitations on exercise of judicial review: a bar on the issuance of advisory opinions, and a requirement that parties must have standing.
In Canada, the rule is established in R. v. Handy, 164 CCC (3d) 481, 2 SCR 908 (2002): . Evidence of prior bad acts by the accused will be admissible if the prosecution satisfies the judge on a balance of probabilities that, in the context of the particular case, the probative value of the evidence in relation to a specific issue outweighs its potential prejudice and thereby justifies its ...
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 ...
It is the principle that no person should be judged without a fair hearing in which each party is given the opportunity to respond to the evidence against them. [ 2 ] "Audi alteram partem" is considered to be a principle of fundamental justice or equity or the principle of natural justice in most legal systems .
Discovery doctrine; Doctrine of cash equivalence; Doctrine of chances; Doctrine of colourability; Doctrine of equivalents; Doctrine of exoneration of liens; Doctrine of foreign equivalents; Doctrine of indivisibility; Doctrine of inherency; Doctrine of international exhaustion; Doctrine of laches; Doctrine of merger; Doctrine of necessity