Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Hedonic damages is a legal term that first emerged in 1985 in the research of Stan V. Smith, who was a PhD student in economics at the University of Chicago. The term refers to damages for loss of enjoyment of life, the intangible value of life, as distinct from the human capital value or lost earnings value.
Stan V. Smith is an American economist credited with coining the term and creating the arguments behind the hedonic damages theory, which entered mainstream legal economics in the 1985 court case Sherrod v. Berry. [1] He often presents, publishes, and speaks on economics. [2]
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno: 2006: Held that state taxpayers do not have standing to challenge to state tax laws in federal court. 9–0 Massachusetts v. EPA: 2007: States have standing to sue the EPA to enforce their views of federal law, in this case, the view that carbon dioxide was an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Cited Georgia v.
This case featured the first example of judicial review by the Supreme Court. Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199 (1796) A section of the Treaty of Paris supersedes an otherwise valid Virginia statute under the Supremacy Clause. This case featured the first example of judicial nullification of a state law. Fletcher v.
Williams et al. v. State of North Carolina: 317 U.S. 287 (1942) Divorce and marriage recognition between states Parker v. Brown: 317 U.S. 341 (1943) Parker immunity doctrine in United States antitrust law: Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States: 318 U.S. 363 (1943) Negotiable instruments, Federal common law: Largent v. State of Texas: 318 U.S ...
Supreme Court of Montana reversed. In a case involving a state law prohibiting corporate expenditures that support or oppose a political candidate or party, the Supreme Court reversed the Montana Supreme Court's 2011 holding in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of Montana that the
A thrill killing is premeditated or random murder that is motivated by the sheer excitement of the act. [1] While there have been attempts to categorize multiple murders, such as identifying "thrill killing" as a type of "hedonistic mass killing", [2] actual details of events frequently overlap category definitions making attempts at such distinctions problematic.
R v Smith, [1992] 2 SCR 915 is a leading decision on hearsay by the Supreme Court of Canada.This decision, along with R v Khan (1990), began what is called the "hearsay revolution", supplementing the traditional categorical approach to hearsay exceptions with a new "principled approach" based on reliability and necessity of testimony.