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.
Section 319 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 is unconstitutional because it violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) Limits on corporate and union political expenditures during election cycles violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment ...
Constitutional avoidance canon: "When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided." [1] [2]
Held that people of African ancestry (whether free or not) were not United States Citizens, and therefore lacked standing to sue. This ruling stood as precedent until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 7–2 Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. 1907
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 ...
Both Scalia and Thomas occasionally joined Court opinions that mention the doctrine and, in their dissents, often argued over how substantive due process should be employed based on Court precedent. Many non-originalists, like Justice Byron White, have also been critical of substantive due process. As propounded in his dissents in Moore v.
It is the duty of the judge, in all jurisdictions, when requested, and in some when not requested, to explain the presumption of innocence to the jury in his charge. The usual formula in which this doctrine is expressed is that every man is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Court membership; Chief Justice