Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously overturned accounting firm Arthur Andersen's conviction of obstruction of justice in the fraudulent activities and subsequent collapse of Enron.
When the borrower defaulted on the loan, Esanda turned to the auditors to recover claiming it had acted on reliance of audited accounts which breached mandatory accounting standards in relation to preparing the accounts and but for this breach of duty by Peat Marwick Hungerford. Central to this argument was that Esanda had suffered a loss which ...
Precedent is a judicial decision that serves as an authority for courts when deciding subsequent identical or similar cases. [1] [2] [3] Fundamental to common law legal systems, precedent operates under the principle of stare decisis ("to stand by things decided"), where past judicial decisions serve as case law to guide future rulings, thus promoting consistency and predictability.
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), was a 2014 United States Supreme Court [1] decision about patent eligibility of business method patents. [2] The issue in the case was whether certain patent claims for a computer-implemented, electronic escrow service covered abstract ideas, which would make the claims ineligible for patent protection.
As examples, Supreme Court decisions in the well-known cases of Kowalski (whether state policemen could exclude meal reimbursements from gross income) and Dalm (whether a taxpayer could get a refund for overpaid gift taxes otherwise time-barred, when the delay was caused in resolving income tax deficiencies) show the Supreme Court resolving ...
Thus, common law is declaratory, and this is often retrospective in effect. For example, see Shaw v DPP [1] and R v Knuller. [2] In the search for justice and fairness, there is a tension between the needs for, on one hand, predictability and stability, and "up-to date law", on the other. [3] There is a hierarchy of courts, and a hierarchy of ...
Ratio decidendi (US: / ˌ r eɪ ʃ i oʊ ˌ d ɪ s aɪ ˈ d ɛ n d i,-d aɪ /; Latin plural rationes decidendi) is a Latin phrase meaning "the reason" or "the rationale for the decision". The ratio decidendi is "the point in a case that determines the judgement" [1] or "the principle that the case establishes".
A simple concurring opinion arises when a judge joins the decision of the court but has something to add. Concurring in judgment means that the judge agrees with the majority decision (the case's ultimate outcome in terms of who wins and who loses) but not with the reasoning of the majority opinion (why one side wins and the other loses).