Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
That presumption of reasonableness has since led to a more deferent view being taken by courts in Canada in reviewing administrative decisions. [ 11 ] In addition, the ruling has effectively ensured that most forms of public employment are best viewed through the lens of private employment law principles, irrespective of whether the affected ...
The UK courts have also ruled that an opinion formed by an employer or other contracting body in relation to a contractual matter has to be "reasonable" in the sense in which that expression is used in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation: see the decision of the High Court in The Vainqueur José [4] and that of the ...
In law, subjective standard and objective standards are legal standards for knowledge or beliefs of a plaintiff or defendant. [1] [2]: 554–559 [3]An objective standard of reasonableness ascertains the knowledge of a person by viewing a situation from the standpoint of a hypothetical reasonable person, without considering the particular physical and psychological characteristics of the defendant.
In constitutional and administrative law, reasonableness is a lens through which courts examine the constitutionality or lawfulness of legislation and regulation. [ 12 ] [ 13 ] [ 14 ] According to Paul Craig , it is "concerned with review of the weight and balance accorded by the primary decision-maker to factors that have been or can be deemed ...
Accountability for reasonableness is an ethical framework that describes the conditions of a fair decision-making process. It focuses on how decisions should be made and why these decisions are ethical. It was developed by Norman Daniels and James Sabin and is often applied in health policy and bioethics. [1]
"Most administrative decisions can be reviewed in the courts for their reasonableness and procedural fairness: they must comply with the law and be made in a procedurally fair manner; and the reviewing process can be triggered by making an application for judicial review - writs don't come into it . . .
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that an objective reasonableness standard should apply to a civilian's claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of his or her person.
[5] Courts are "highly deferential," indulging a "strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance." [ 6 ] Strickland permits attorneys to make strategic decisions to emphasize one line of defense over another, so long as they are made "after thorough investigation of law and facts ...