Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The rule was later extended to cover cases where what is complained of is some internal irregularity in the operation of the company. However, the internal irregularity must be capable of being confirmed/sanctioned by the majority. The rule in Foss v Harbottle has another important implication.
Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 is a leading decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law.It established the rule that one's non-natural use of their land, which leads to another's land being damaged as a result of dangerous things emanating from the land, is strictly liable.
Kenneth May proved that the simple majority rule is the only "fair" ordinal decision rule, in that majority rule does not let some votes count more than others or privilege an alternative by requiring fewer votes to pass. Formally, majority rule is the only decision rule that has the following properties: [10] [11]
The Supreme Court announced its decision on July 5, 1984, with Justice Byron White filing for the 6–3 majority in favor of the United States, with Justice Harry Blackmun writing a concurring opinion. First, the exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish magistrates and judges for their errors.
Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court case that involved issues concerning statutory standing in antitrust law.. The decision established the rule that indirect purchasers of goods or services along a supply chain cannot seek damages for antitrust violations committed by the original manufacturer or service provider, but it permitted such claims ...
I join the relevant parts of the majority on the understanding that its general case-by-case rule does not foreclose historical, categorical exceptions. Although the majority unnecessarily leads with doctrine before history, it does not disturb our regular rule that history—not court-created standards of reasonableness—dictates the outcome ...
Congress may define the jurisdiction of the judiciary through the simultaneous use of two powers. [1] First, Congress holds the power to create (and, implicitly, to define the jurisdiction of) federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court (i.e. Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and various other Article I and Article III tribunals).
Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides (in part): If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion ...