Ads
related to: ex parte proof hearing
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In law, ex parte (/ ɛ k s ˈ p ɑːr t eɪ,-iː /) is a Latin term meaning literally "from/out of the party/faction [1] of" (name of party/faction, often omitted), thus signifying "on behalf of (name)". An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the dispute to be present.
In Endo's case—Ex parte Mitsuye Endo—the court unanimously ruled on Dec. 18, 1944, that the government could not detain citizens who were loyal to the United States. The day before the ruling, hearing that the case would go against his Executive Order 9066 Pres. Roosevelt issued an order allowing Japanese Americans to return to the West Coast.
Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944), was a United States Supreme Court ex parte decision handed down on December 18, 1944, in which the Court unanimously ruled that the U.S. government could not continue to detain a citizen who was "concededly loyal" to the United States. [1]
Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861) (No. 9487), was a controversial U.S. federal court case that arose out of the American Civil War. [1] It was a test of the authority of the President to suspend "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus " under the Constitution's Suspension Clause , when Congress was in recess and therefore ...
Ex parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887), overruled in part by United States v. ... Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895)*
The standard of proof for this test is the "balance of probabilities". [27] A drawing of Lady Justice. In R. v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1923), [28] the court said that "justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done". [29]
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), is a United States Supreme Court case that allows suits in federal courts for injunctions against officials acting on behalf of states of the union to proceed despite the State's sovereign immunity, when the State acted contrary to any federal law or contrary to the Constitution. [1]
R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte A was a 1999 case in the United Kingdom where a decision by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) not to award compensation was quashed by the House of Lords as it was deemed to be a breach of the rules of natural justice.