Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In constitutional and administrative law, reasonableness is a lens through which courts examine the constitutionality or lawfulness of legislation and regulation. [12] [13] [14] According to Paul Craig, it is "concerned with review of the weight and balance accorded by the primary decision-maker to factors that have been or can be deemed relevant in pursuit of a prima facie allowable purpose".
Reasonable accommodation, an adjustment made in a system to accommodate an individual's need; Reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing, a licensing requirement set by standards organizations; Reasonable Blackman, a silk weaver in sixteenth-century England; Reasonable doubt, a legal standard of proof in most adversarial criminal systems
In law, a reasonable person, reasonable man, sometimes referred to situationally, [1] is a hypothetical person whose character and care conduct, under any common set of facts, is decided through reasoning of good practice or policy. [2] [3] It is a legal fiction [4] crafted by the courts and communicated through case law and jury instructions. [5]
A reasonable accommodation is an adjustment made in a system to accommodate or make fair the same system for an individual based on a proven need. That need can vary. That need can vary. Accommodations can be religious, physical, mental or emotional, academic, or employment-related, and law often mandates them.
The reasonable person model (RPM) is a psychological framework which argues that people are at their best when their informational needs are met.Positing that unreasonableness is not a human trait, but rather the result of environment (context and circumstances), the RPM attempts to define the environments/actions that foster reasonableness, defining three key areas that assist with this ...
Reasonable people with good intentions can still disagree over matters of substance. This is a concept that many people don't understand. Indeed, this is a concept that many people don't want to understand. It is comforting to think that those who disagree with us do so because they are unreasonable and possibly evil.
English and U.S. courts later began to move toward a standard of negligence based on a universal duty of care in light of the "reasonable person" test. Vaughan v. Menlove is often cited as the seminal case which introduced the “reasonable person” test not only to the tort law, but to jurisprudence generally. [2] [3] This assertion is false. [4]
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that an objective reasonableness standard should apply to a civilian's claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of his or her person.