Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Kisor v. Wilkie, No. 18-15, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a US Supreme Court case related to the interpretation by an executive agency of its own ambiguous regulations. The case involved a veteran who had been denied some benefits from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs due to the agency's interpretation of its regulations.
In the case of a patent ambiguity, parol evidence is admissible to explain only what has been written, not what the writer intended to write. For example, in Saunderson v Piper (1839), [ 7 ] where a bill of exchange was drawn in figures for £245 and in words for two hundred pounds, evidence that "and forty-five" had been omitted by mistake was ...
This is the ambiguous case and two different triangles can be formed from the given information, but further information distinguishing them can lead to a proof of congruence. Angle-angle-angle
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court established that the right to counsel can only be legally asserted by an "unambiguous or unequivocal request for counsel." [1] Legal scholars have criticized this case stating that the "bright line" rule established under Edwards v.
Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart [1992] UKHL 3, is a landmark decision of the House of Lords on the use of legislative history in statutory interpretation.The court established the principle that when primary legislation is ambiguous then, in certain circumstances, the court may refer to statements made in the House of Commons or House of Lords in an attempt to interpret the meaning of the ...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Redirect page
One common technique is to provide almost all of the entire text of a landmark case which created an important legal rule, followed by brief notes summarizing the holdings of other cases which further refined the rule. Traditionally, the casebook method is coupled with the Socratic method in American law schools. [1]
Salinas v. Texas, 570 US 178 (2013), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which the court held 5-4 decision, declaring that the Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause does not extend to defendants who simply choose to remain silent during questioning, even though no arrest has been made nor the Miranda rights read to a defendant.