Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 relevant in pursuit of a prima facie allowable purpose".
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.
Negligence, nuisance, reasonable foreseeability Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company (1856) 11 Ex Ch 781 [ 1 ] concerns reasonableness in the law of negligence . It is famous for its classic statement of what negligence is and the standard of care to be met.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 [1] is an English law case that sets out the standard of unreasonableness in the decision of a public body, which would make it liable to be quashed on judicial review, known as Wednesbury unreasonableness.
In the law, the totality of the circumstances test refers to a method of analysis where decisions are based on all available information rather than bright-line rules. [1] Under the totality of the circumstances test, courts focus "on all the circumstances of a particular case, rather than any one factor". [ 2 ]
Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case employing the "reasonableness test" in warrantless searches.The Court held that while the police need not always be factually correct in conducting a warrantless search, such a search must always be reasonable.
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1] (often known simply as Briginshaw) is a 1938 decision of the High Court of Australia which considered how the requisite standard of proof should operate in civil proceedings. [2] Portrait of Owen Dixon, who wrote the most frequently cited passage of Briginshaw v Briginshaw
Argument: Oral argument: Case history; Prior: Palmer v. Hudson, 697 F.2d 1220 (4th Cir. 1983); cert. granted, 463 U.S. 1206 (1983).: Holding; Prison inmates have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their cells under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and destruction of property did not constitute a Due Process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment because Virginia had adequate state ...