Sentences with phrase «law doctrine means»

However, the rule of law doctrine means authorities may only act within the law and must obey the law.

Not exact matches

You speak on what is «True Doctrine», could we also point to something such as the Consti; tution and the daily court room arguments of lawyers and clerks who feel that they alone know and understand the true meaning of the what the framers when they wrote the laws of this land?
Of course we wish to treat people with compassion and encouragement, even when they are in objectively sinful or irregular states of life, but this does not mean that we can blithely set aside the law of God and change the Lord's own doctrine on marriage.
I buy into all that Christian doctrine of law and promise, which means that the stuffy old commandments are still binding on my conscience.
At the same time, if the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty means anything at all, it means, «What the Queen in Parliament enacts is law
[18] To the extent the doctrine of champerty and maintenance remains relevant in Canadian common law, even as means of protecting the courts and vulnerable litigants against abuses, its purpose is not and was never intended to be achieved by conferring on the courts the discretion to inquire into and approve or disapprove of a plaintiff's funding arrangements as a condition precedent to instituting or pursuing litigation.
I am not sure what Mr. Lashway means in saying «There are insufficient Rule of Law doctrines in Canada, the US and around the world.»
The doctrine of stare decisis is the overarching principle of how case law molds the law in response to changing conditions, and scholarship related to this doctrine will often implicate how the law changes in emphasis or meaning over time in response to changing conditions.
Those of us who need to know such things know that the SCC granted leave to appeal in Clements v Clements 2011 CanLII 36004 (from 2010 BCCA 581) where the issue will be the meaning of the Canadian material - contribution doctrine (and maybe some other things about proof of causation in Canadian tort law should the Court deign to go there.)
Mr. Sirota offers quite a bit to chew on in just over 1000 words, but his argument, as I understand it, boils down to the following propositions: 1) Judges must generally apply the law as written and should work to foster stable legal doctrine, 2) In applying the law, judges can not avoid making moral and value - laden judgments; and 3) Judicial moralizing is, to a certain extent, desirable due to «democratic process failures,» meaning that the legislative process is not properly responding to the changing will of the people (Mr. Sirota also discusses briefly the circumstances in which courts should be permitted to overrule precedents.
The nature of the task when construing a contractual waiver in accordance with the governing law of the contract, when combined with the KRG's acceptance of the doctrine as being a procedural matter, means that its argument that the Court has no jurisdiction to determine the issue of waiver under the Constitution of the UAE is bound to fail.
As she notes, however, the bar often loses to «the state» — meaning legislatures, administrative agencies, and courts applying common law doctrines.
Case law shall complement the legal system by means of the doctrine repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court in its interpretation and application of statutes, customs and general legal principles.
I hope to put a better analysis of the meaning and consequences of the Resurfice - Clements material contribution doctrine on my law firm's website by the end of the month.
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z