Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart [1992] UKHL 3, is a landmark decision of the House of Lords on the use of legislative history in statutory interpretation.The court established the principle that when primary legislation is ambiguous then, in certain circumstances, the court may refer to statements made in the House of Commons or House of Lords in an attempt to interpret the meaning of the ...
Gates Rubber Company v. Bando Chemical Industries, Ltd., et al. [1] is a decision by the U.S. district court for the District of Colorado from May 1, 1996. It is considered a landmark decision [2] in terms of expert witness court testimony in questions of electronic evidence [3] and digital forensics.
In Daubert, the court ruled that nothing in the Federal Rules of Evidence governing expert evidence "gives any indication that 'general acceptance' is a necessary precondition to the admissibility of scientific evidence. Moreover, such a rigid standard would be at odds with the Rules' liberal thrust and their general approach of relaxing the ...
In United States law, the Frye standard, Frye test, or general acceptance test is a judicial test used in some U.S. state courts to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence. It provides that expert opinion based on a scientific technique is admissible only when the technique is generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific ...
Relevance, in the common law of evidence, is the tendency of a given item of evidence to prove or disprove one of the legal elements of the case, or to have probative value to make one of the elements of the case likelier or not.
DPP v Peter Cullen, [2014] IESC 7; [2014] 3 IR 30, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court addressed the routine practice of An Garda Síochána of placing handcuffs after an arrest for drink driving. The court ruled that an arrest will be thrown out if it is shown that it was unnecessary to place handcuffs on the accused.
Kevin Hart is being accused by a former friend of submitting fabricated evidence to the L.A. County district attorney in the wake of his 2017 sex tape scandal.
The Supreme Court reversed, and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On remand, the court analyzed the case under the new standard, upholding the district court's original grant of summary judgement for the defendant. [5] After Daubert, it was expected that the range of scientific opinion evidence used in court would be ...