Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
R v B (KG), [1993] 1 SCR 740, popularly known as the KGB case, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements as proof of the truth of their contents. Prior to this case, prior inconsistent statements made by a witness other than an accused could merely be used to impeach the witness's ...
The holding is a court's determination of a matter of law based on the issue presented in the particular case.In other words: under this law, with these facts, this result. It is the same as a 'decision' made by the judge; however "decision" can also refer to the judge's entire opinion, containing, for example, a discussion of facts, issues, and law as well as the holding.
In Federalist No. 33, Alexander Hamilton writes about the Supremacy Clause that federal laws by definition must be supreme. If the laws do not function from that position, then they amount to nothing, noting that "A law, by the very meaning of the term, includes supremacy. It is a rule which those to whom it is prescribed are bound to observe.
abbreviation of pro tempore, meaning "for the time being" Something, such as an office held, that is temporary. pro tempore: for the time being Something, such as an office held, that is temporary. propria persona: proper person Refers to one representing themselves without the services of a lawyer. Also known as pro per representation. qua ...
Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that before admitting evidence of extrinsic acts under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, federal courts should assess the evidence's sufficiency under Federal Rule of Evidence 104(b). Under 104(b), "[w]hen the relevancy of ...
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that set the standard for involuntary commitment for treatment by raising the burden of proof required to commit persons for psychiatric treatment from the usual civil burden of proof of "preponderance of the evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence".
While the case related to divorce law, it also served to confirm that the balance of probabilities is the applicable standard of proof in all civil proceedings, subject to statute. Prior to Briginshaw , due to the state of the law in England at the time, Australian law regarding the onus of proof in divorce cases "was a little confused". [ 4 ]
In law, a per curiam decision or opinion (sometimes called an unsigned opinion) is one that is not authored by or attributed to a specific judge, but rather ascribed to the entire court or panel of judges who heard the case. [1] The term per curiam is Latin for ' by the court '. [2]