Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Entrapment by estoppel: In American criminal law, although "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a principle which generally holds for traditional (older common law) crimes, courts sometimes allow this excuse as a defense, when defendant can show they reasonably relied on an interpretation of the law by the public official(s) charged with ...
A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: [45] government inducement of the crime, and; the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. The federal entrapment defense is based upon statutory construction, the federal courts' interpretation of the will of Congress in passing the criminal statutes.
Entrapment provisions apply to actions of government informers as well as agents Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. 356 U.S. 525 (1958) application of the Erie doctrine: Ellis v. United States: 356 U.S. 674 (1958) Due Process, in forma pauperis United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. 356 U.S. 677 (1958) The secrecy of Grand jury ...
Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court regarding the criminal procedure topic of entrapment.A narrowly divided court overturned the conviction of a Nebraska man for receiving child sexual abuse material through the mail, ruling that postal inspectors had implanted a desire to do so through repeated written entreaties.
An Estoppel Certificate (or Estoppel Letter) is a document commonly used in due diligence in real estate and mortgage activities. It is based on estoppel, the legal principle that prevents or estops someone from claiming a change in the agreement later on. [1] It is used in a variety of countries for commercial and residential transactions.
Estoppel forms part of the rules of equity, which were originally administered in the Chancery courts. Estoppel in English law is a doctrine that may be used in certain situations to prevent a person from relying upon certain rights, or upon a set of facts (e.g. words said or actions performed) which is different from an earlier set of facts.
Collateral estoppel as applied to the same factual situation in criminal trials, double jeopardy: Ashe v. Swenson: 397 U.S. 436 (1970) Same as in Waller v. Florida, above Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York: 397 U.S. 664 (1970) Tax exemption for churches Rowan v. U. S. Post Office Dept. 397 U.S. 728 (1970)
Collateral estoppel (CE), known in modern terminology as issue preclusion, is a common law estoppel doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue. One summary is that, "once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision ... preclude[s] relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case". [1]