Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
[2]: p. 142 Gaudron J was the only judge to have held that any part of the 1918 Ordinance was invalid, holding that sections 6, 16 and 67(1)(c) were invalid as they were not necessary for the attainment of some overriding purpose. These were the sections that permitted the Chief Protector to take children into custody, and to confine them to a ...
The legal status of Hawaii is an evolving legal matter as it pertains to United States law. [citation needed] The US Federal law was amended in 1993 with the Apology Resolution which "acknowledges that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States and further acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly ...
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.
Farah Constructions v Say-Dee Pty Ltd, also known as Farah, is a decision of the High Court of Australia. [1] The case was influential in developing Australian legal doctrines relating to equity, property, unjust enrichment, and constructive trusts, [2] as well as the doctrine of precedent as it applies in Australia.
These past decisions are called "case law", or precedent. Stare decisis —a Latin phrase meaning "let the decision stand"—is the principle by which judges are bound to such past decisions, drawing on established judicial authority to formulate their positions.
The Engineers case arose out of a claim lodged by the Amalgamated Society of Engineers against the Adelaide Steamship Company in the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration for an award relating to 844 employers across Australia. [1] In Western Australia, the employers included three governmental employers. The question was whether a ...
In the Engineers Case (1920), [4] the High Court of Australia swept away the earlier doctrines of implied intergovernmental immunities and reserved State powers, firmly establishing the modern basis for the legal understanding of federalism in Australia. The Court also rejected the use of American precedent and said that they would apply the ...
In Australia, the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity defines the circumstances in which Commonwealth laws can bind the States, and where State laws can bind the Commonwealth. This is distinct from the doctrine of crown immunity , as well as the rule expressed in Section 109 of the Australian Constitution which governs conflicts between ...