Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Four Corners Rule is a legal doctrine that courts use to determine the meaning of a written instrument such as a contract, will, or deed as represented solely by its textual content. The doctrine states that where there is an ambiguity of terms, the Court must rely on the written instrument solely and cannot consider extraneous evidence.
The Four Corners of Law is a term commonly used to refer to the intersection of Meeting and Broad Streets in Charleston, South Carolina. [1] It was coined in the 1930s by Robert Ripley, creator of Ripley's Believe it or Not! [2] and refers to the buildings occupying the four corners of the intersection:
It is historically known as "the Four Corners of Law" because the intersection hosted buildings from each level of government: the Courthouse (state law), City Hall (municipal law), the Federal Building and U.S. Post Office (federal law), and Saint Michael's Episcopal Church (canon law).
It is located at Broad and Meeting streets on one of the Four Corners of Law, and represents ecclesiastical law. It was built in the 1750s by order of the South Carolina Assembly. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is a National Historic Landmark.
It can be confusing, but it’s good to know -- failure to yield properly could result in points on your license.
In Australia, the four corners rule has been adopted in preference to the idea of a "fundamental breach". [12] The court will presume that parties to a contract will not exclude liability for losses arising from acts not authorised under the contract.
Two of those Four Corner schools will face off on Saturday in a Big 12 Conference matchup: No. 20 Colorado (7-2, 5-1 Big 12) will take on Utah (4-5, 1-5) at noon ET from Folsom Field in Boulder ...
Case history; Prior: Franks v. State, 373 A.2d 578 (Del. 1977): Subsequent: Franks v. State, 398 A.2d 783 (Del. 1979): Holding; Where a warrant affidavit contains a statement, necessary to the finding of probable cause, that is demonstrated to be both false and included by an affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, the warrant is not valid.