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 ...
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".
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.
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]
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.
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.
Reasonable suspicion, [9] the legal standard which must be met before police officers can exercise certain powers, [4] [10] is based on information in the mind of the police officer at the time a power is wielded. Less than a reasonable belief, it is more than a possibility. It is not arbitrary. [4]