Judicial Interpretations
... Kermit Roosevelt III stated that "in practice 'activist' turns out to be little more than a rhetorically charged shorthand for decision the speaker disagrees with." However others have scolded this approach as unhelpful because it relies on subjective judgments. Judicial restraint The Glossary of Po ...
... Kermit Roosevelt III stated that "in practice 'activist' turns out to be little more than a rhetorically charged shorthand for decision the speaker disagrees with." However others have scolded this approach as unhelpful because it relies on subjective judgments. Judicial restraint The Glossary of Po ...
Student Conduct Code DTF Meeting Notes October 14, 2009
... processes and review by a board of peers. As long as the stated process was followed, courts tend to uphold the College’s decision. She will review the substance of the Code for potential legal challenges. Legal challenges may be posed on constitutional grounds or “specificity in the notice”. A viab ...
... processes and review by a board of peers. As long as the stated process was followed, courts tend to uphold the College’s decision. She will review the substance of the Code for potential legal challenges. Legal challenges may be posed on constitutional grounds or “specificity in the notice”. A viab ...
Week 5 Reading and Vocab Sheet 2nd Semester
... A) 53 B) 12 C) 9 D) 91 E) 50 4. Which of the following is NOT under the jurisdiction of the district courts? A) supervision of bankruptcy proceedings B) supervision of the naturalization of aliens C) admiralty and maritime law cases D) the majority of all criminal cases in the United States E) civil ...
... A) 53 B) 12 C) 9 D) 91 E) 50 4. Which of the following is NOT under the jurisdiction of the district courts? A) supervision of bankruptcy proceedings B) supervision of the naturalization of aliens C) admiralty and maritime law cases D) the majority of all criminal cases in the United States E) civil ...
Ouster clause
An ouster clause or privative clause is, in countries with common law legal systems, a clause or provision included in a piece of legislation by a legislative body to exclude judicial review of acts and decisions of the executive by stripping the courts of their supervisory judicial function. According to the doctrine of the separation of powers, one of the important functions of the judiciary is to keep the executive in check by ensuring that its acts comply with the law, including, where applicable, the constitution. Ouster clauses prevent courts from carrying out this function, but may be justified on the ground that they preserve the powers of the executive and promote the finality of its acts and decisions.Ouster clauses may be divided into two species – total ouster clauses and partial ouster clauses. In the United Kingdom, the effectiveness of total ouster clauses is fairly limited. In the case of Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Committee (1968), the House of Lords held that ouster clauses cannot prevent the courts from examining an executive decision that, due to an error of law, is a nullity. Subsequent cases held that Anisminic had abolished the distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors of law. Thus, although prior to Anisminic an ouster clause was effective in preventing judicial review where only a non-jurisdictional error of law was involved, following that case ouster clauses do not prevent courts from dealing with both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors of law, except in a number of limited situations.The High Court of Australia has held that the Constitution of Australia restricts the ability of legislatures to insulate administrative tribunals from judicial review using privative clauses. Similarly, in India ouster clauses are almost always ineffective because judicial review is regarded as part of the basic structure of the Constitution that cannot be excluded. The position in Singapore is unclear. Two cases decided after Anisminic have maintained the distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors of law, and it is not yet known whether the courts will eventually adopt the legal position in the United Kingdom. The Chief Justice of Singapore, Chan Sek Keong, suggested in a 2010 lecture that ouster clauses may be inconsistent with Article 93 of the Constitution, which vests judicial power in the courts, and may thus be void. However, he emphasized that he was not expressing a concluded view on the matter.In contrast with total ouster clauses, courts in the United Kingdom have affirmed the validity of partial ouster clauses that specify a time period after which aggrieved persons can no longer apply to court for a remedy.