Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In U.S. law, particularly after Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the difference between de facto segregation (that existed because of voluntary associations and neighborhoods) and de jure segregation (that existed because of local laws) became important distinctions for court-mandated remedial purposes.
In jurisprudence, a de facto law (also known as a de facto regulation) is a law or regulation that is followed but "is not specifically enumerated by a law." [ 4 ] By definition, de facto 'contrasts' de jure which means "as defined by law" or "as a matter of law."
Segregation was enforced across the U.S. for much of its history. Racial segregation follows two forms, de jure and de facto. De jure segregation mandated the separation of races by law, and was the form imposed by U.S. states in slave codes before the Civil War and by Black Codes and Jim Crow laws following the war, primarily in the Southern ...
De facto corporation and corporation by estoppel are both terms that are used by courts in most common law jurisdictions to describe circumstances in which a business organization that has failed to become a de jure corporation (a corporation by law) will nonetheless be treated as a corporation, thereby shielding shareholders from liability.
De jure sovereignty refers to the legal right to do so; de facto sovereignty refers to the factual ability to do so. This can become an issue of special concern upon the failure of the usual expectation that de jure and de facto sovereignty exist at the place and time of concern, and reside within the same organization.
While de facto segregation simply exists due to people's habits, de jure segregation is the result of laws and ordinances that discriminate against minorities. In the preface of the book, Rothstein argues that, if it can be shown that housing segregation in America is the result of de jure factors rather than simply de facto , then all ...
De facto recognition of states, rather than de jure, is rare. De jure recognition is stronger, while de facto recognition is more tentative and recognizes only that a government exercises control over a territory. An example of the difference is when the United Kingdom recognized the Soviet state de facto in 1921, but de jure only in 1924.
This type of asymmetry can be called de jure asymmetry (Brown 2). The second type reflects agreements which come out of national policy, opting out, and (depending on one's definition of the term) bilateral and ad hoc deals with specific provinces, none of which are entrenched in the constitution. This type of asymmetry is known as de facto ...