Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The concept of reasonableness has two related meanings in law and political theory: . As a legal norm, it is used "for the assessment of such matters as actions, decisions, and persons, rules and institutions, [and] also arguments and judgments."
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.
Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof that in United States law is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch ' "; [1] it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts", [2] and the suspicion must be associated with the ...
The reasonable expectation of privacy has been extended to include the totality of a person's movements captured by tracking their cellphone. [24] Generally, a person loses the expectation of privacy when they disclose information to a third party, [ 25 ] including circumstances involving telecommunications. [ 26 ]
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]