Sentences with phrase «legal doctrines which»

Secondly, dealing with those issues requires an understanding both of complex legal doctrines which developed in a quite different context - we learn a surprising amount from Gallavin and Mason about the trial of Sir Walter Raleigh - and of technological matters such as the extent to which digital images may be enhanced or manipulated, legitimately or otherwise (discussed by Mason and Seng in Ch 3).

It was these values that led him, as a newly - appointed judge in the 1940s, to devise a legal doctrine which lawyers regarded as revolutionary, but which performed the elementary moral task of holding people to their promises - something which the commercially - oriented common law had found it expedient not to do.

A Latin phrase meaning «let the superior answer,» respondeat superior is the legal doctrine which holds an employer, officer, manager, supervisor or other «superior» individual or group to an employee or subordinate legally liable for the acts of the employee or subordinate.

«Piercing the corporate veil» is a legal doctrine which removes the «corporate shield» and makes an individual personally liable for the corporation's debts.

Not exact matches

Scholasticism Theology moved from the monastery to the university Western theology is an intellectual discipline rather than a mystical pursuit Western theology is over-systematized Western Theology is systematized, based on a legal model rather than a philosophical model Western theologians debate like lawyers, not like rabbis Reformation Catholic reformers were excommunicated and formed Protestant churches Western churches become guarantors of theological schools of thought Western church membership is often contingent on fine points of doctrine Some western Christians believe that definite beliefs are incompatible with tolerance The atmosphere arose in which anyone could start a church The legal model for western theology intensifies despite the rediscovery of the East

Hoefer 1979) says that the «rite has become a legal condition for the entry into the church which functions as a religious communal group; in this context it fails to convey its full meaning and purpose as the expression of or solidarity with the new humanity in Christ which transcends all communal or caste solidarities»; he also refers to the conclusion of Joseph Belcastro's book A New Testament Doctrine of Baptism for Today, that «the N.T. does not teach that baptism was a condition of salvation or church membership, but baptism was to be available for the disciples of the coming church....

Describing euthanasia as «this ghastly doctrine» which «tries to justify the murder of blameless men and would seek to give legal sanction to the forcible killing of invalids, cripples, the incurable and the incapacitated» he went on:

God's covenant with Noah which asks fallen humanity to establish a society based on reverence for life and a legal justice that protects the innocent human beings from the murderer who is around; and God's call to Moses to liberate the Israelite people from Pharaoh's slavery; and God permitting monarchy with new perils of oligarchy to destroy the more human Tribal Federation to liberate the Israelites from the technically superior Philistines in Palestine; and Paul's doctrine that the Roman State, which he knew had its role in crucifying Jesus.

The solution is a return to the pre-Constantinian practice of the Church in which a Church marriage is a purely sacramental matter, subject to the doctrine and disciplines of the Church, but without legal standing.

This is supposedly based on standard «self defense» war doctrine which is recognized by United Nations, although specific legal issues are subject to much debating and frequently are more a matter of opinion than law.

These Articles applied and interpreted in sync, coupled with legal doctrines or principles of «ex facie curiae», «actus reus», «mens rea», «respondeat superior» and «nemo judex in sua causa», all of which were breached and disregarded respectively by the SC, my conclusion is that the SC acted unconstitutionally in the Montie case.

Thus, disparate impact doctrine, which is supposed to help minority groups, will, once again, inflict punishment on minority students, who will be forced to learn from teachers who demonstrate lower levels of literacy or who perhaps even lack basic knowledge — just one more reason the Supreme Court should have sent disparate impact to the dustbin of legal history.

The panel of judges ruled that 25 of Prince's 30 «Canal Zone» collage - paintings fairly sourced images from Cariou's book Yes, Rasta according to the legal doctrine of «fair use,» which allows artists to employ other creators» imagery as long as they «transform» it into something substantively new.

On Aug. 30, the Court of Appeals of the State of Mississippi issued a ruling (via the Legal Profession Blog) in which it reversed the 2009 manslaughter conviction of Justin Thomas because the lower court refused to give a requested jury instruction regarding the castle doctrine.

Sorochan claims that social covenant is of the same «constitutional importance as promises by the representatives of government to the First Nations» where court cases evoked the legal doctrine of «honour of the Crown» which asserts that Canada is honour bound to carry out the promises of the social covenant.

By integrating writing and doctrine in the first semester, we are sending a message to our students, at outset of their legal education, that there is no real divide between analyzing legal doctrine and the writing that communicates that analysis.54 By writing within a doctrinal context, students are able to see the ways in which the law and how it is structured influence their writing choices.55 Moreover, students tend to develop a deeper understanding of the connected doctrinal course because of the writing that occurs in that doctrinal area.56 Thus a number of the benefits that result from integrating the two courses arise from the synergies that come from teaching both courses together.57 What follows are some specific synergies that I have observed in teaching the integrated LA&W and Introduction to Torts courses.

I find it rather remarkable if not ignorant that you speak so easily about a judgment devoid of any logical, economic or even legal arguments, which stretches the scope of Article 101 to operators which could not possibly have foreseen this; in any case not on the basis of the Treaty text, not on the basis of any precedent, and hardly on the basis of competition law doctrine.

Within the past decade, banking and insurance companies have hired historical legal experts and spent a lot of time litigation over the US Federal Court system's power to issue equitable remedies such as the Mareva injunction and equitable liens to seize assets in federal litigation; the Alien Torts Act which has been used by international human rights organizations had its breadth restricted by use of 18th century views of the «law of nations» requiring recourse to historic writers like Hugo Grotius, and even administrative law has come under assault by dissents of Justice Thomas arguing that the «Chevron» doctrine of deference to agency interpretations of their own statutes should be set aside as being incompatible with the understanding of the American separation of powers doctrine as it was understood at the time of the country's founding.

Rather, they accept the presumptive validity of the existing curriculum's primary focus on domestic legal doctrines and institutions, which the proponents seek to enrich by incorporating a global perspective.

Also, Massachusetts recognizes a legal doctrine called vicarious liability, which holds an employer liable for careless acts that an employee commits during the course and scope of employment.

A legal doctrine by which a court refuses to consider trifling matters.

Contributory negligence is a legal causation doctrine in some jurisdictions which questions whether the injured person was also negligent.

So ironically it has become tarred with the brush of economic incompetence as opposed to the Tory led coalition which has caused the loss of billions of output since 2010, and removed essential public provision such as civil legal aid, all in the name of a totally discredited economic doctrine — austerity economics.

He added that the following values were all to be appreciated and brought into a pragmatic balance: that an efficient and cost - effective and relatively informal type of alternative dispute resolution should not be stifled by the imposition of legal doctrine; that the opportunity for the development of new ideas fitting to financial service industries operating in consumer markets should be appreciated for the benefits they could bring; that on the other hand transparency, consistency and accessibility as to the principles which informed the ombudsman's determinations remained virtues in the new setting; and that publicity as to those principles and those determinations could assist in that regard.

Maryland is a uniquely bad state in which to be involved in a crash as the state continues to observe an out - dated legal doctrine, that of contributory negligence.

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.

In the context of ICBC injury claims, the legal doctrine of «crumbling skull» occurs where a claimant already has a deteriorating condition which is made worse and accelerated by a Defendant's negligence.

Historically, the practice of funding legal action in exchange for future remuneration has been governed by the common law doctrines of champerty and maintenance, which emerged to safeguard a party's best interests and protect the administration of justice against abuse from nonparties.

The legal doctrine is called respondeat superior, which is Latin for, «Let the master answer.»

Next comes Terri Enns and Monte Smith's article, entitled, «Take a (Cognitive) Load Off: Creating Space to Allow First - Year Legal Writing Students to Focus on Analytical and Writing Processes,» in which Terri and Monte encourage us to focus the students» attention away from the documents they write — the products — and focus on writing and analysis — the processes.8 Terri and Monte's article provide us with a discussion of the cognitive blocks that «impede -LSB--RSB- first - year law students» ability to learn analytical and writing processes at the same time that the students are producing written analysis for a grade,» as well as describing exercises that Terri and Monte have used in class to assist the students in refocusing on the writing and analytical processes, instead of the products.9 And Terri and Monte's article concludes with a proposal of devoting a portion of class to processes, 10 in hopes that «[g] reater understanding and the adoption of that doctrine [the processes] should improve the students» ability to transfer their new knowledge to new analysis and writing tasks.»

Other states and countries have adopted the doctrine of comparative fault, which «compares» the legal responsibility of the victim and the other parties, and provides compensation to the victim in direct proportion to the comparative responsibility of the parties (i.e., if the dog owner is 90 % responsible and the victim is only 10 % responsible, then the victim's compensation is reduced by his or her 10 % of fault).

Medical malpractice law, in Massachusetts and elsewhere, is part of the common law — the rich tradition of «judge - made law» that we inherited from our English ancestors and upon which we have embroidered our own legal doctrines.

Justice Stratas argues that we need stable, coherent, legal doctrine to which lawyers and judges alike are committed because we might not always live in «benign times,» and in a moment of crisis we will be better off if judges decide controversial cases on the basis of stable legal doctrine rather than of what they feel is right or fair in those ominous circumstances.

For one thing, as he did in his lecture on «The Decline of Legal Doctrine» last year, which I commented on here, Justice Stratas calls upon us to devote ourselves to shoring up this weakened edifice.

This Comment joins other work in arguing that the legitimacy of stare decisis depends upon widespread publication.4 The doctrine of stare decisis itself emerged only with the consistent and reliable publication of court opinions, 5 and legal processes that do not result in the issuance of publicly available opinions, such as settlements and arbitrations, generally lack stare decisis norms altogether.6 Although previous scholarship has discussed the proper role of stare decisis in the context of «unpublished» opinions, 7 which make up around eighty percent of all United States courts of appeals opinions8 (and are usually publicly available despite their name), 9 this Comment provides the first examination of the tenability of stare decisis as applied to truly secret opinions like those of the FISC.

Much of the discussion in the Court's judgment turns on what is known as the third - party doctrine — an exception to the warrant rule which entitles government officials to access without any legal formality information which you have given to someone else.

The name of the legal doctrine that allows a criminal judgment to have this effect in a civil case is called «collateral estoppel» which is also sometimes called «issue preclusion».

Of course, the most obvious distinction is that theft is a legal wrong which can be prosecuted if committed as a crime, while adverse possession is a curative doctrine used to determine who owns the property at a given time rather than to punished or affirmative sue someone.

However, one survey found that about half of consumers believe it is insurer's responsibility, and consumers may come to this conclusion through the insurer's processes, which one legal scholar argues creates a «reasonable expectation» of coverage, [10] which is a controversial insurance law doctrine adopted in certain states.

When legal doctrine is lacking, lawyers and judges sometimes look for analogies, trying to find the most analogous transaction for which clear tax treatment does exist.

The contribution of Eddie Mabo in campaigning for Indigenous land rights and for his role in a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia which overturned the legal doctrine of terra nullius («nobody's land») which characterised Australian law with regard to land and title was also recognised.

According to current native title doctrine, extinguishment is the termination of a legal native title right, caused as a direct result of, and at the time of, a Crown act creating a non-Indigenous interest in land which is inconsistent with the native title right.

Photo / painting above: Eddie Koiki Mabo (c. 29 June 1936 — 23 January 1992) from the Torres Strait Islands known for his role in campaigning for Indigenous land rights and for his role in a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia which overturned the legal doctrine of terra nullius («land belonging to nobody») which characterised Australian law with regard to land and title