Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In an affirmative defense, the defendant may concede that they committed the alleged acts, but they prove other facts which, under the law, either justify or excuse their otherwise wrongful actions, or otherwise overcomes the plaintiff's claim. In criminal law, an affirmative defense is sometimes called a justification or excuse defense. [4]
Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996), [1] was the first successful legal challenge to a university's affirmative action policy in student admissions since Regents of the University of California v.
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 experience of two highly selective public U.S. law schools offers a guide for other schools to admitting diverse students now that the U.S. Supreme Court has banned colleges and universities ...
Entrapment defenses in the United States have evolved mainly through case law. Courts took a dim view of the defense at first. The New York Supreme Court said in 1864 that "[It] has never availed to shield crime or give indemnity to the culprit, and it is safe to say that under any code of civilized, not to say Christian, ethics, it never will ...
Mutual combat, or consent to do battle, is an affirmative defense in assault and aggravated assault cases in the Lone Star State. Washington is the only other state in the union that allows this .
Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. 297 (2013), also known as Fisher I (to distinguish it from the 2016 case), [1] is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us