Ads
related to: court interpreting proper protocols for medical purposes
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Bolam principle addresses the first element and may be formulated as a rule that a doctor, nurse or other health professional is not negligent if he or she acts in accordance with a practice accepted at the time as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion, even though some other practitioners adopt a different practice.
Physicians have a duty to act in their patients best interest and can be charged in a court of law if they fail to do so. On the other hand, a physician may be required to act in the interest of third parties if his patient is a danger to others. Failure to do so may lead to legal action against the physician. Medical jurisprudence includes:
If that individual argued to the court that a motorcycle is not a "motor vehicle", then the court would have to interpret the statute to determine what the legislature meant by "motor vehicle" and whether or not the motorcycle fell within that definition and was covered by the statute. There are numerous rules of statutory interpretation.
United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954) The writ of coram nobis is the proper application to request federal post-conviction judicial review for those who have completed the conviction's incarceration in order to challenge the validity of a federal criminal conviction. Thompson v.
The purposive approach (sometimes referred to as purposivism, [1] purposive construction, [2] purposive interpretation, [3] or the modern principle in construction) [4] is an approach to statutory and constitutional interpretation under which common law courts interpret an enactment (a statute, part of a statute, or a clause of a constitution) within the context of the law's purpose.
interpreting scope of activities covered by the Clean Water Act: Brigham City v. Stuart: 547 U.S. 398 (2006) reasonableness of officers' warrantless entry into a home to stop a fight under the "emergency aid exception" Garcetti v. Ceballos: 547 U.S. 410 (2006) extent of public employees' First Amendment right to free speech in the workplace Anza v.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), is a landmark [2] [3] [4] United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress's power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly called Obamacare, [5] [6] and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA), including a requirement for most ...
First adopted in 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence codify the evidence law that applies in United States federal courts. [1] In addition, many states in the United States have either adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, with or without local variations, or have revised their own evidence rules or codes to at least partially follow the federal rules.