Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Some have argued that judicial review exclusively by the federal courts is unconstitutional [72] based on two arguments. First, the power of judicial review is not delegated to the federal courts in the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states (or to the people) those powers not delegated to the federal government.
The House of Lords held that the hourly threshold contravened the EU law on equal treatment of men and women. The EOC had sufficient interest to gain standing under SDA 1975 s 53. It held that the Secretary of State had not discharged the onus of showing that the threshold did not infringe art 157, applying Bilka-Kaufhaus and Rinner-Kuhn.
The High Court held that the WDM had a sufficient interest, and that too much money was spent on the dam. Rose LJ said the following: factors of significance in the present case: the importance of vindicating the rule of law... the importance of the issue raised... the likely absence of any other responsible challenger... the nature of the breach of duty... the prominent role of these ...
It may, in its discretion, examine all the circumstances of the case and see if the substantive grounds for judicial review are serious enough. [5] Delay or lack of sufficient interest can also lead to the court refusing to grant a remedy after it had considered the case on the merits. [4]: s. 31(6)(b) [6]
The question of sufficient interest had to be resolved in relation to what was known by the court of the matter under review, and on the evidence the tax scheme was a lawful exercise of the IRC's discretion. Lord Fraser stressed the sufficient interest test was a logically prior question that had to be answered before any question of merits arose.
Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution states: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to ...
In U.S. constitutional law, when a law infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right, the court may apply the strict scrutiny standard. Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest". The government must ...
Under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 to have standing the applicant must be "a person who is aggrieved", [5] defined as "a person whose interests are adversely affected" by the decision or conduct complained of. [6] This has generally been interpreted in accordance with the common law test. [7]