Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Entrapment by estoppel: In American criminal law, although "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a principle which generally holds for traditional (older common law) crimes, courts sometimes allow this excuse as a defense, when defendant can show they reasonably relied on an interpretation of the law by the public official(s) charged with ...
The position in most common law jurisdictions (which follow England) is that if an issue is not barred by a finding of 'cause of action estoppel', or 'issue estoppel', the question then turns to whether an abuse of process can be established on the Henderson v Henderson line of authority. [11]
Legal estoppel is a principle of law, particularly United States patent law, that an assignor or grantor is not permitted subsequently to deny the validity of title to the subject matter of the assignment or grant.
Legal jurisdictions which provide for apparent authority include the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and South Africa.The doctrine of apparent authority is based on the concept of estoppel, thus, it prevents the principal from denying the existence of agency to a third party, provided that a representation, as to the agent's authority, has been made by him to the third ...
The doctrine of direct estoppel prevents a party to litigation from relitigating an issue that was decided against that party. [1] Direct estoppel and collateral estoppel are part of the larger doctrine of issue preclusion. [2] Issue preclusion means that a party cannot litigate the same issue in a subsequent action. [3]
In private international law, the public policy doctrine or ordre public (French: lit. "public order") concerns the body of principles that underpin the operation of legal systems in each state. This addresses the social, moral and economic values that tie a society together: values that vary in different cultures and change over time.
Cohen had not used the promissory estoppel argument to avoid the hurdle of a libel case, but for identifiable pecuniary losses, distinguishing the case from Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (1988). Consequently, any restriction on reporting was "incidental, and constitutionally insignificant" result of applying a generally applicable law.
Libertarian academic philosophers have noted the implausible results consistently applying the principle yields: for example, Professor Matt Zwolinski notes that, because pollution necessarily violates the NAP by encroaching (even if slightly) on other people's property, consistently applying the NAP would prohibit driving, starting a fire, and ...