Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
However, use of the literal rule may defeat the intention of Parliament. For instance, in the case of Whiteley v. Chappel, [10] the court came to the reluctant conclusion that Whiteley could not be convicted of impersonating "any person entitled to vote" at an election, because the person he impersonated was dead. Using a literal construction ...
A strict application of the plain meaning rule can sometimes result in "absurd" outcomes. Examples of the plain meaning rule producing absurd outcomes can be seen in the following cases: In Whitely v Chappel (1868), a statute made it an offence "to impersonate any person entitled to vote". The defendant used the vote of a dead man.
R v Whiteley (1991) 93 Cr App R 25 was an important case in the criminal law of England & Wales in relation to criminal damage.It established that for the purposes of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, [1] the property in question must be tangible but the damage done may be intangible. [2]
Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning whether the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment was offended by a school district that refused to allow a church access to school premises to show films dealing with family and child-rearing issues faced by parents.
Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1959] UKHL 1 is an important English contract law case, where the House of Lords confirmed the traditional doctrine that in order for a legal contract to be binding consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate.
Kyles v. Whitley , 514 U.S. 419 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that a prosecutor has an affirmative duty to disclose evidence favorable to a defendant pursuant to Brady v.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) voted Friday to make former president Donald Trump's ally, Michael Whatley, its new chair. Yahoo News explains who he is, along with other new leadership ...
In Bartlett v Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd, Brightman J interpreted the case as follows.. I do not understand Cross J. to have been saying that in every case where trustees have a controlling interest in a company it is their duty to ensure that one of their number is a director or that they have a nominee on the board who will report from time to time on the affairs of the company.