Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The philosopher Alfred Lessing argues that the difference between questions of law and questions of fact is ill-defined, with frequent disagreement over whether a given statement was the former or the latter. The distinction between "law" and "fact" has proved obscure wherever it is employed. For instance, the common law used to require that a ...
The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted the Case or Controversy Clause of Article III of the United States Constitution (found in Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) as embodying two distinct limitations on exercise of judicial review: a bar on the issuance of advisory opinions, and a requirement that parties must have standing.
This barrier between fact and value, as construed in epistemology, implies it is impossible to derive ethical claims from factual arguments, or to defend the former using the latter. [2] The fact–value distinction is closely related to, and derived from, the is–ought problem in moral philosophy, characterized by David Hume. [3]
Hume's law or Hume's guillotine [1] is the thesis that an ethical or judgmental conclusion cannot be inferred from purely descriptive factual statements. [ 2 ] A similar view is defended by G. E. Moore 's open-question argument , intended to refute any identification of moral properties with natural properties , which is asserted by ethical ...
Questions of constitutionality are considered a type of question of law, and thus appellate courts always review lower court decisions that address constitutional issues de novo. However, the term "standard of review" has an additional meaning in the context of reviewing a law for its constitutionality, which concerns how much deference the ...
The legal memorandum is the most common type of predictive legal analysis; it may include the client letter or legal opinion. The legal memorandum predicts the outcome of a legal question by analyzing the authorities governing the question and the relevant facts that gave rise to the legal question.
Factual impossibility is rarely an adequate defense at common law. This is not to be confused with a "mistake of fact" defense, which may be a defense to a specific intent crime like larceny. This is not to be confused with a "mistake of fact" defense, which may be a defense to a specific intent crime like larceny.
In United States law, federal question jurisdiction is a type of subject-matter jurisdiction that gives United States federal courts the power to hear civil cases where the plaintiff alleges a violation of the United States Constitution, federal law, or a treaty to which the United States is a party.