Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Judicial restraint is a judicial interpretation that recommends favoring the status quo in judicial activities and is the opposite of judicial activism.Aspects of judicial restraint include the principle of stare decisis (that new decisions should be consistent with previous decisions); a conservative approach to standing (locus standi) and a reluctance to grant certiorari; [1] and a tendency ...
As Professor Alexander Bickel points out, however, Atherton Mills was "a case of quite conventional mootness, hardly apt as an illustration of judicial self-restraint in constitutional litigation". [15] Mootness, a justiciability doctrine, serves to ensure that a controversy is "live" and in need of judicial resolution. [16]
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court under which prior restraint on publication was found to violate freedom of the press as protected under the First Amendment.
This case featured the first example of judicial nullification of a federal law and it was the point at which the Supreme Court adopted a monitoring role over government actions. [2] Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170 (1804) The President does not have "inherent authority" or "inherent powers" that allow him to ignore a law passed by the US Congress.
definition of "burglary" under certain sentence enhancement provisions of the federal criminal code Burnham v. Superior Court of California: 495 U.S. 604 (1990) physical presence as a requirement for personal jurisdiction Duro v. Reina: 495 U.S. 676 (1990) Indian tribes have no jurisdiction over nonmember Indians Westside School District v. Mergens
The avoidance doctrine flows from the canon of judicial restraint and is intertwined with the debate over the proper scope of federal judicial review and the allocation of power among the three branches of the federal government and the states. It is also premised on the "delicacy" and the "finality" of judicial review of legislation for ...
This was a landmark case, prior to this, private citizens were permitted to litigate public rights. 9–0 Frothingham v. Mellon: 1923: Held that the generalized injury of higher taxation overall was insufficient to give a taxpayer standing to challenge federal spending. Considered the genesis of the doctrine of standing. [2] 9–0 Poe v. Ullman ...
Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court holding that a New York State statute that prescribed maximum working hours for bakers violated the bakers' right to freedom of contract under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1]