Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Others, of more robust temperament, fail to foresee or nonchalantly disregard even the most obvious dangers. The reasonable man is presumed to be free both from over-apprehension and from over-confidence, but there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable man involves in its application a subjective element. " [5] [6]
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 ...
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.
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]
People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96 (N.Y. 1986), was a court case chiefly concerning subjective and objective standards of reasonableness in using deadly force for self-defense; the New York Court of Appeals (the highest court in the state) held that a hybrid objective-subjective standard was mandated by New York law.
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.
The US Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Florida Supreme Court with a four-vote plurality, arguing that the accused did not have a reasonable expectation that the greenhouse was protected from aerial view, and thus that the helicopter surveillance did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. However, the Court stopped short ...