Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In some jurisdictions, there are exceptions to the general rule that ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. For example, under U.S. Federal criminal tax law, the element of willfulness required by the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code has been ruled by the courts to correspond to a "voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal ...
Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (1957), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the defense of ignorance of the law when there is no legal notice. [1] The court held that when one is required to register one's presence, failure to register may be punished only when there is a probability that the accused party had knowledge of the law before committing the crime of failing to ...
In law, the principle of imputation or attribution underpins the concept that ignorantia juris non excusat —ignorance of the law does not excuse. All laws are published and available for study in all developed states. The said imputation might also be termed "fair notice".
Washington has laws that allow efforts to stop violence from high-risk individuals before it happens. But it’s almost never employed here. | Opinion
Mistake of law is a legal principle referring to one or more errors that were made by a person in understanding how the applicable law applied to their past activity that is under analysis by a court. In jurisdictions that use the term, it is differentiated from mistake of fact. There is a principle of law that "ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Mistake of fact and mistake of law in criminal law and in mistake in contract law; The general policy usually allocated in cases of mistakes is ignorantia juris non excusat, i.e. the state cannot allow ignorance of the law to be a defense. This would unduly encourage the lazy and the deceitful to trade on their ignorance (real or otherwise).
Case history; Prior: Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: Holding (1) A genuine, good faith belief that one is not violating the Federal tax law based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law is a defense to a charge of "willfulness", even though that belief is irrational or unreasonable; (2) a belief that the Federal income tax is ...
United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1976), is a criminal case in which the court held that willful ignorance satisfied the requirements of knowledge of a fact. [1] The holding gave rise to the jury instruction known as the ostrich instruction. [1]