Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Courts did have the equitable power to enjoin defendants with regard to the plaintiff, but typically not the world at large. [3]: 420 In cases where multiple parties had a common claim against the same defendant, the British chancellor sometimes offered a remedy known as a "bill of peace."
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that set forth the legal test used when U.S. federal courts must defer to a government agency's interpretation of a law or statute. [1]
Criminal jurisdiction is a term used in constitutional law and public law to describe the power of courts to hear a case brought by a state accusing a defendant of the commission of a crime. It is relevant in three distinct situations: to regulate the relationship between states, or between one state and another;
the defendant is domiciled or resident in the province; the defendant carries on business in the province; the tort was committed in the province; and; a contract connected with the dispute was made in the province. It was also held that a Canadian court cannot decline to exercise its jurisdiction unless the defendant invokes forum non ...
The defendant never made an appearance on U.S. territory depriving the plaintiffs of one easy avenue of obtaining in personam jurisdiction over the defendant – the simple act of being able to serve process on the defendant while the defendant is visiting and within the territory of the United States (this would be the traditional territorial ...
Territorial jurisdiction in United States law refers to a court's power over events and persons within the bounds of a particular geographic territory. If a court does not have territorial jurisdiction over the events or persons within it, then the court cannot bind the defendant to an obligation or adjudicate any rights involving them.
The act of state doctrine entered into American jurisprudence in the case Underhill v.Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250 (1897). [5] In an 1892 revolution, General José Manuel "Mocho" Hernández expelled the existing Venezuelan government and took control of Ciudad Bolívar, where plaintiff Underhill lived and ran a waterworks system for the city.
The principle was not mentioned in the original United States Constitution. The courts have recognized it both as a principle that was inherited from English common law, and as a practical, logical inference (that the government cannot be compelled by the courts because it is the power of the government that creates the courts in the first place).