Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Indiana Senate Bill 101, titled the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), [1] is a law in the U.S. state of Indiana, which allows individuals and companies to assert as a defense in legal proceedings that their exercise of religion has been, or is likely to be, substantially burdened. [2] [3]
[citation needed] The first General Assembly of the Indiana Territory met on July 29, 1805, and shortly after the Revised Statutes of 1807 was the official body of law. [citation needed] Indiana's constitution, adopted in 1816, specified that all laws in effect for the Territory would be considered laws of the state, until they expired or were ...
Prior to the adoption of statutory protections, there was some protection under common law. New York: In People v. Phillips (1 Southwest L. J., 90), in the year 1813, the Court of General Sessions in New York recognized the privilege as in a decision rendered by De Witt Clinton, recognized the privilege as applying to Rev. Anthony Kohlmann, S.J., who refused to reveal in court information ...
Otherwise, religious communication is covered by common law. Canadian law descends from British common law, and as such the status of priest–penitent privilege is not well defined in national jurisprudence. R. v. Gruenke [10] from 1991 is the leading Supreme Court of Canada case regarding this privilege.
Pages in category "Common law rules" The following 27 pages are in this category, out of 27 total. This list may not reflect recent changes. A. Ademption by satisfaction;
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!
The 1816 (superseded) and 1851 Constitutions of the State of Indiana, located in the Indiana Statehouse Rotunda. The Constitution of Indiana is the highest body of state law in the U.S. state of Indiana. It establishes the structure and function of the state and is based on the principles of federalism and Jacksonian democracy.
The traditional common law rule through most of the 19th century was that a plaintiff could not recover for a defendant's negligent production or distribution of a harmful instrumentality unless the two were parties to a contract (privity of contract). Thus, only the immediate purchaser could recover for a product defect, and if a part was ...