Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ]
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 ...
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.
The Accardi doctrine was later strengthened in Service v. Dulles 354 US 363 (1957) [4] and Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 US 535 (1959) [5] Due to a ruling in United States v. Fausto, [6] the doctrine generally does not apply to Federal employment decisions that are covered by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
While courts invoked the principle previously, it was Jabez Gridley Sutherland, a noted attorney, legislator, judge and politician, who in 1891 in his influential treatise stated, “Relative and qualifying words and phrases, grammatically and legally, where no contrary intention appears, refer solely to the last antecedent.” J. Sutherland ...
Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100, 67 ER 313 [1] was a decision of the English Court of Chancery which confirmed that a party may not raise any claim in subsequent litigation which they ought properly to have raised in a previous action.
The avoidance doctrine flows from the canon of judicial restraint and is intertwined with the debate over the proper scope of federal judicial review and the allocation of power among the three branches of the federal government and the states. It is also premised on the "delicacy" and the "finality" of judicial review of legislation for ...
United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132 (1918), also referred to as the Spearin doctrine, is a 1918 United States Supreme Court decision. It remains one of the landmark construction law cases. [1] The owner impliedly warrants the information, plans and specifications which an owner provides to a general contractor. The contractor will not be ...