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".
The Art of Reasonableness was long taught in the tradition of Liberal Arts textbooks teaching either dialectic or rhetoric. See: Rick Kennedy, "A History of Reasonableness: Testimony and Authority in the Art of Thinking" (Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2004).
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]
The seemingly "simple" elementary brain-teaser asks one student "Reasonableness: Marty ate 4/6 of his pizza and Luis ate 5/6 of his pizza. Marty ate more pizza than Luis.
Reasonableness, the quality of a government action that is reasonable; Subjective and objective standard of reasonableness, legal standards of reasonableness; Reasonable person model, a psychological model of environments/actions that foster reasonableness; Reasonable suspicion, a legal standard of proof in United States law
These standards correspond to those applied on appeals from lower court decisions. Where the government decision-maker's decision is reviewed by way of judicial review, the relevant standard for all questions is generally "reasonableness". [13]
This is no excuse for poor judgment, or trying to act beyond one's abilities. Were it so, there would be as many standards as there were defendants; and courts would spend innumerable hours, [citation needed] and the parties much more money, on determining that particular defendant's reasonableness, character, and intelligence [clarify].
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.