Ogden vs. Gibbons was a controversial court case that was debated in 1824 after Aaron Ogden filed a restraint against Thomas Gibbons. Ogden and Gibbons were former business partners in the steamboat industry and for three years they successfully worked together throughout waterways in New York. Unfortunately Gibbons decided to operate another steamboat that came in conflict with Ogden’s steamboat and this is when Ogden filed a restraint against Gibbons. Ogden’s complaint was that he no longer wanted Gibbons to operate steamboats in New York waters. This was an important court case because the court had to figure out who had the power to control navigation in interstate waterways.
The 1992 Mabo High Court case represents one of the most profound cases in Australian history leading to the turning point of Reconciliation for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. As a result of this decision, it changed the legislation of the indigenous Australians introducing land rights and impacted the indigenous Australians society rights and freedom as a more desirable outcome in the movement towards Reconciliation. The 1992 Mabo court case was a pivotal turning point in the progressive Reconciliation in Australia. It paved the pathway for Indigenous land rights and confronted the state of Queensland and Australian commonwealth to regain their freedom and equality.
Mr. Thelaw’s conduct would likely be considered extreme and outrageous when he manipulated Ms. Smartpants emotions in front of the class. Courts have reasoned that a defendant cannot deliberately attempt to manipulate the emotions of a plaintiff, for a perceived advantage over a plaintiff who is susceptible to emotional distress. KOVR-TV, Inc., 37 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 435; McDaniel, 281 Cal.
In the light of the sentiment presented above, this paper discusses the circumstances that led to the case being heard in court. It explores the events that took place at each level of the case, the issues addressed
Every year, Americans across the country gather to celebrate their independence and freedom from the British government. On July 4th, 1776, America officially declared their independance from England, and the American people would be free from British tyranny. In the beginning, the Colonists did not want to be independant from the British Government, and were happily living in America and making money and embracing their freedoms(Notes Cite). However, the British government began to take away their freedoms and their rights by using taxes and implementing acts that upset the Colonists(Notes Cites).The colonists came to America to free themselves from persecution in Britain, and to start over and create a better life for themselves. In the
Ever wondered how the court systems go about making their decisions and if they are just in doing so? There have been cases where the process of the law has been questioned. These cases can only be straightened out by the due process of law. The guarantee of due process, in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, prevents the government from unfairly depriving individuals of their basic rights to life, liberty, and property. (Strasser)
The article Broken Bench explains the controversy over having “tiny courts” in New York State. The author, William Glaberson argues that the idea of justice within the jurisdiction of these tiny courts is unfairly decided among the justices in charge. Due to the lack of experience of these justices, it is difficult for fair justice to be dealt out. One of the major causes explained by the author for unfair justice is that the justices of the court are very inexperienced. For example, William Glaberson states, “Nearly three-quarters of the judges are not lawyers, and many — truck drivers, sewer workers or laborers — have scant grasp of the most basic legal principles.
Here a compensation tribunal was set up to compensate the families of victims who had died in the Stardust tragedy. The grieving father of one victim sought a review of a decision made by the tribunal to award the mother of a victim compensation and the father no compensation. The court refused to quash the decision of the tribunal and, strangely, agreed that there were circumstances which justified awarding of compensation to one parent and not the other. This decision was made by a court which was quite critical of the approach taken by Lord Diplock in GCHQ. Henchy J. said he would be ‘slow to test reasonableness by seeing if it accords with logic’ and would be ‘equally slow’ to accept the moral standard criteria believing it a vague and inconsistent principle to base reasonableness on.
[5] Common law works in a different way, the judges rather than the Parliament make common law or ‘judge-made law’. Considering criminal and civil cases, the judges take decisions based on the stare decisis principle (Latin “to stand by things decided”, the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent [4]), deliver rulings and create precedents, thus applying the law to real life situations. Therefore, the value of the precedent is very high in the English Common Law system. The strengths of common law
The critical success factor is to develop and secure common norms between
The use of ECHR or European Convention on Human Rights in British courts before it was being incorporated into United Kingdom law is an example. UK and any other country which relies to the power of legislation, should always if possible do not conflicts with the international law. Therefore the supremacy of both laws depends on the acceptance if the municipal courts to the international law
International law is not law in the true sense of the term- Hobbes and Austin
International laws are, by definition “A body of rules established by custom or treaty and recognized by nations as binding in their relations with one another” (www.oxforddictionaries.com). International law is a very significant topic because it affects everyone globally. In this research report, I would like to explore the advantages and disadvantages of international laws and consider if they should be enforced in all countries. The modern system we use today was developed in the 17th century in Europe and is still used worldwide (Stratton, 2009). After the Second World War, international unity became very popular (Neff).
In the article entitled ‘Determining the Ratio Decidendi of the Case’ by Arthur L. Goodhart, I underwent a roller coaster-like journey on exploring the science behind the nature of a precedent in English law. Goodhart started with the attempt to explain the full meaning of ratio decidendi in the simplest terms. He referred to Sir John Salmond’s definition in which I have interpreted ratio decidendi as the principle of law that is found in a court decision and possesses the authority to be binding. Ratio decidendi should be distinguished from a judicial decision, as the latter is a wider concept and contains the ratio decidendi, whereas the former is a principle that carries the force of law. In another reference, Professor John Chipman Gray
According to iRami (2012) stated that the shipping plays an important role in world trade which is the backbone of the world economy. Recently, without these boats and vessels provide transportation services, many countries will be unable to participate in world trade and will not be as prosperous. From centuries past, the sea has always been important to all country at the world which as an important factor of economic development of every maritime country. The maritime sector contributes significantly to the economic development. Underling this is the fact that 95% of the country international trade is carried in whole or in part by maritime transport.
