|
Legal Doctrine
A legal doctrine is a framework, set of rules, Procedural law, procedural steps, or Test (law), test, often established through precedent in the common law, through which judgments can be determined in a given legal case. A doctrine comes about when a judge makes a ruling where a process is outlined and applied, and allows for it to be Case law, equally applied to like cases. When enough judges make use of the process, it may become established as the ''de facto'' method of deciding like situations. Examples Examples of legal doctrines include: See also * Constitutionalism * Constitutional economics * Concept * Rule according to higher law * Legal fiction * Legal precedent * ''Ex aequo et bono'' References External links * *Pierre Schlag and Amy J. Griffin, "How to do Things with Legal Doctrine" (University of Chicago Press 2020) * Emerson H. Tiller and Frank B. Cross,What is Legal Doctrine? " ''Northwestern University Law Review'', Vol. 100:1, 2006. Legal doctrines ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Procedural Law
Procedural law, adjective law, in some jurisdictions referred to as remedial law, or rules of court, comprises the rules by which a court hears and determines what happens in civil, lawsuit, criminal or administrative proceedings. The rules are designed to ensure a fair and consistent application of due process (in the U.S.) or fundamental justice (in other common law countries) to all cases that come before a court. Substantive law, which refers to the actual claim and defense whose validity is tested through the procedures of procedural law, is different from procedural law. In the context of procedural law, procedural rights may also refer not exhaustively to rights to information, access to justice, and right to counsel, rights to public participation, right to confront accusers as well as the basic presumption of innocence (meaning the prosecution regularly must meet the burden of proof, though different jurisdictions have various exceptions), with those rights en ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Rule Of Law
The rule of law is the political philosophy that all citizens and institutions within a country, state, or community are accountable to the same laws, including lawmakers and leaders. The rule of law is defined in the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' as "the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law, secures a nonarbitrary form of government, and more generally prevents the arbitrary use of power." The term ''rule of law'' is closely related to constitutionalism as well as ''Rechtsstaat'' and refers to a political situation, not to any specific legal rule. Use of the phrase can be traced to 16th-century Britain. In the following century, the Scottish theologian Samuel Rutherford employed it in arguing against the divine right of kings. John Locke wrote that freedom in society means being subject only to laws made by a legislature that apply to everyone, with a person being otherwise free from both governmental and ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Ex Aequo Et Bono
''Ex aequo et bono'' (Latin for "according to the right and good" or "from equity and conscience") is a Latin phrase that is used as a legal term of art. In the context of arbitration, it refers to the power of arbitrators to dispense with consideration of the law but consider solely what they consider to be fair and equitable in the case at hand. However, a decision ''ex aequo et bono'' is distinguished from a decision on the basis of equity (''equity intra legem''), "Whereas an authorisation to decide a question ''ex aequo et bono'' is an authorisation to decide without deference to the rules of law, an authorisation to decide on a basis of equity does not dispense the judge from giving a decision based upon law, even though the law be modified". Article 38(2) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) provides that the court may decide cases ''ex aequo et bono'' only if the parties agree. In 1984, the ICJ decided a case using "equitable criteria" in creating a b ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Legal Precedent
A precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Common-law legal systems place great value on deciding cases according to consistent principled rules, so that similar facts will yield similar and predictable outcomes, and observance of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained. The principle by which judges are bound to precedents is known as ''stare decisis'' (a Latin phrase with the literal meaning of "to stand in the-things-that-have-been-decided"). Common-law precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory law (that is, statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies) and subordinate legislation (that is, regulations promulgated by executive branch agencies, in the form of delegated legislation) in UK parlance – or regulatory law (in US parlance). Case law, in common-law jurisdictions, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Legal Fiction
A legal fiction is a fact assumed or created by courts, which is then used in order to help reach a decision or to apply a legal rule. The concept is used almost exclusively in common law jurisdictions, particularly in England and Wales. Development of the concept A legal fiction typically allows the court to ignore a fact that would prevent it from exercising its jurisdiction by simply assuming that the fact is different. In cases where the court must determine whether a standard has been reached, such as whether a defendant has been negligent, the court frequently uses the legal fiction of the "reasonable man". This is known as the "objective test", and is far more common than the "subjective test" where the court seeks the viewpoint of the parties (or "subjects"). Sometimes, the court may apply a "mixed test", as in the House of Lords' decision in ''DPP v Camplin'' 1978. Legal fictions are different from legal presumptions which assume a certain state of facts until th ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
