Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Intermediate scrutiny may be contrasted with "strict scrutiny", the higher standard of review that requires narrowly tailored and least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest, and "rational basis review", a lower standard of review that requires the law or policy be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
Chapter 2 (1 CFR 51) concerns the incorporation by reference of outside documents into the Federal Register, thereby making them a part of the Federal Register. Regulations include the circumstances under which the Director of the Federal Register will approve incorporation, how to request approval, which publications are eligible, the proper language for citing incorporated publications, and ...
In U.S. constitutional law, rational basis review is the normal standard of review that courts apply when considering constitutional questions, including due process or equal protection questions under the Fifth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment.
Forty of the 50 states apply some form of the principle known as Dillon's Rule, which says that local governments may exercise only powers that the state specifically grants to them, to determine the bounds of a municipal government's legal authority. [1] In some states, known as home rule states, the state's constitution grants municipalities ...
In U.S. constitutional law, when a law infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right, the court may apply the strict scrutiny standard. Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest". The government must ...
Relevance, in the common law of evidence, is the tendency of a given item of evidence to prove or disprove one of the legal elements of the case, or to have probative value to make one of the elements of the case likelier or not. Probative is a term used in law to signify "tending to prove". [1] Probative evidence "seeks the truth".
Territorial jurisdiction in United States law refers to a court's power over events and persons within the bounds of a particular geographic territory. If a court does not have territorial jurisdiction over the events or persons within it, then the court cannot bind the defendant to an obligation or adjudicate any rights involving them.
In 1922, the Supreme Court held in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon that governmental regulations that went "too far" were a taking. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the majority of the court, stated that "[t]he general rule at least is that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking."