Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Clean hands, sometimes called the clean hands doctrine, unclean hands doctrine, or dirty hands doctrine, [1] is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy because the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands".
The problem of dirty hands concerns whether political leaders and those in similar positions can ever be justified in committing even gravely immoral actions when "dirtying their hands" in this way is necessary for realizing some important moral or political end, such as the preservation of a community's continued existence or the prevention of imminent societal catastrophe.
Honest services fraud is a crime defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1346 (the federal mail and wire fraud statute), added by the United States Congress in 1988, [1] which states "For the purposes of this chapter, the term scheme or artifice to defraud includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."
United States (1984), the Court held that, under the federal bribery and gratuity statute, the definition of a "public official" includes anyone in a "position of public trust with official federal responsibilities," including for example the employees of a non-profit that administers a federal block housing grant. [29]
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corporation, 549 U.S. 561 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that while a term may be used more than once in a statute, an agency has the discretion to interpret each use of the term in a different way based on the context.
The oral arguments before the court were held after both sides appealed a ruling by a Denver district judge on whether to allow former President Donald Trump to be included on the state's general ...
Civil forfeitures are subject to the "excessive fines" clause of the U.S. Constitution's 8th amendment, both at a federal level and, as determined by the 2019 Supreme Court case, Timbs v. Indiana, at the state and local level. [5] A 2020 study found that the median cash forfeiture in 21 states which track such data was $1,300. [6]