Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Frazer v Walker [1967] 1 AC 569 [1] is a landmark New Zealand court case that went to the Privy Council on appeal. The case upheld the concept that an owner of interest in land which was originally obtained from the rightful owner through fraud, still obtains an indefeasible interest in that title if they were unaware of the fraud.
Kavanaugh suggested a set of heightened criteria that he believed are necessary for plaintiffs to overcome the Purcell principle. [ 11 ] [ 12 ] Law professor Richard L. Hasen argued that the Purcell principle should be part of the public interest factor of the traditional multi-factor standard, and not a stand-alone rule. [ 3 ]
Precedent is a judicial decision that serves as an authority for courts when deciding subsequent identical or similar cases. [1] [2] [3] Fundamental to common law legal systems, precedent operates under the principle of stare decisis ("to stand by things decided"), where past judicial decisions serve as case law to guide future rulings, thus promoting consistency and predictability.
A legal doctrine is a framework, set of rules, procedural steps, or test, often established through precedent in the common law, through which judgments can be determined in a given legal case. For example, a doctrine comes about when a judge makes a ruling where a process is outlined and applied, and allows for it to be equally applied to like ...
C. Capacity (law) Carltona doctrine; Castle doctrine; Caveat emptor; Caveat venditor; Child migration; Clausula rebus sic stantibus; Clean hands; Collateral source rule
In U.S. constitutional law, rational basis review is the normal standard of review that courts apply when considering constitutional questions, including due process or equal protection questions under the Fifth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment.
The Four Corners Rule is a legal doctrine that courts use to determine the meaning of a written instrument such as a contract, will, or deed as represented solely by its textual content. The doctrine states that where there is an ambiguity of terms, the Court must rely on the written instrument solely and cannot consider extraneous evidence.
1) ASCAP members have a common and undivided interest in the right to license in association through the Society free of the state statute. 2) The lower court should have allowed ASCAP members the opportunity to price the cost of complying with the statute and the value of the copyrights affected by it. Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp.