Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
This case continues to be the leading case cited by American courts when articulating the doctrine of comity. [28] It is an important decision for the country as it articulates the definition of comity and does so in a more broad way than previously.
In the federal circuit court case of Corfield v.Coryell, [1] Justice Bushrod Washington wrote in 1823 that the protections provided by the clause are confined to privileges and immunities which are, "in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this ...
The underlying principles, such as basing respect given to foreign courts on reciprocal respect or comity, also apply in civil law systems in the form of the legal doctrine of lis alibi pendens. Forum non conveniens is not exclusive to common law nations: the maritime courts of the Republic of Panama , although not a common law jurisdiction ...
The "stripping doctrine" permits a state official who used his or her position to act illegally to be sued in his or her individual capacity. [citation needed] However, the government itself is still immune from being sued through respondeat superior. [citation needed] The courts have called this "stripping doctrine" a legal fiction.
The court’s decision was based on the principles of comity. The real and substantial connection doctrine has subsequently become the dominant test for whether Canadian courts recognize and enforce foreign judgments. The original doctrine from Morguard only applied to inter-provincial judgments within Canada. [22]
Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the recognition and enforceability of a foreign judgment rested on the "comity of nations," namely whether there would be any reciprocity and mutual recognition by the foreign jurisdiction from which the judgment was issued.
A federal court recently said the Internet Archive is not protected by fair use doctrine.
The Court found that the conduct at issue here clearly had such an effect. The Court also found that, in enacting the FTAIA, the U.S. Congress did not intend to write principles of comity into the Sherman Act - but even if they had, this would not affect the outcome. Both the defendant and Hartford argued that the conduct in which the ...