Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
[7] [8] Supreme Court in E. P. Royappa (1973) provided guidance on arbitrariness of an act: "Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be ‘cribbed, cabined and confined’ within the traditional and doctrinaire limits. From the positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness.
Gandhi filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order on the grounds that it violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The Union responded in their written submissions that her passport was impounded because her presence was likely to be required in connection with legal proceedings before ...
During the 2005 transit strike, both the strikers and the MTA violated portions of the Taylor Law. Section 210 states that the workers are not allowed to strike; Section 201, Part 4, states that employers are not allowed to negotiate benefits provided by a public retirement fund or payment to a fund or insurer to provide an income for retirees.
Unconstitutional vagueness is a concept that is used to strike down certain laws and judicial actions in United States federal courts. It is derived from the due process doctrine found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The doctrine prohibits criminal prosecution for laws where it is impossible to ...
YouTube's own practice is to issue a "YouTube copyright strike" on the user accused of copyright infringement. [1] When a YouTube user gets hit with a copyright strike, they are required to watch a warning video about the rules of copyright and take trivia questions about the danger of copyright. [2] A copyright strike will expire after 90 days.
President Donald Trump is seeking to end birthright citizenship, a constitutional right enshrined in the 14th Amendment. We asked two experts in constitutional and immigration law to walk us ...
According to Ajay Kumar of Firstpost, "the judgment has been viewed as a stain on the legacy of the court for many years.The ratio decidendi (rationale behind the judgment) that all rights under our Constitution are a positive creation of law rather than merely recognised greatly increases the power of the State to do what it likes with them."
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003), [1] decided the same day as Ewing v. California (a case with a similar subject matter), [2] held that there would be no relief by means of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law as a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments.