Fiat justitia ruat caelum was used in the case that was decided in what year?
da06960da003e9b3a5c9ba29efb3d8d7
Fiat justitia ruat caelum Fiat justitia ruat cælum is a Latin legal phrase, meaning ""Let justice be done though the heavens fall."" The maxim signifies the belief that justice must be realized regardless of consequences. According to the 19th-century abolitionist politician Charles Sumner, it does not come from any classical source. It has also been ascribed to Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, see . It was used in the landmark judgment, "Somerset v Stewart", where slavery was held to be unlawful at common law.
80ab73d71d195fd922d99e5cf5ef5dd7
Somerset v Stewart Somerset v Stewart (1772) 98 ER 499 (aka "Somersett's case", or in State Trials v.XX "Sommersett v Steuart") is a famous judgment of the English Court of King's Bench in 1772, which held that chattel slavery was unsupported by the common law in England and Wales, although the position elsewhere in the British Empire was left ambiguous. Lord Mansfield decided that:
07fa61a9aa3577b5025984271d76e85e
Siemens v Manitoba (AG) Siemens v Manitoba (AG), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 6, 2003 SCC 3 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on whether provincial plebiscite, used to determine if video lottery terminals (VLTs) should be banned from individual communities, are constitutional. The Court held that the plebiscites were a valid exercises of the province's power to legislate on matters "of a local nature" under section 92(16) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and that the plebiscite did not violate the rights of the VLT owners under sections 2(b), 7 and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
d74942d39b75929c3a33fa5a8e3614a4
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth, was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia on 4 February 2003. The case was an influential decision not only in relation to immigration law but to administrative law generally and is an authority for the proposition that Parliament cannot restrict the availability of constitutional writs.
848c125c3392d1f31e24aa5010892aa5
Elkins v. United States Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960) , was a US Supreme Court decision that held the "silver platter doctrine", which allowed federal prosecutors to use evidence illegally gathered by state police, to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
a60c5aa0e92a425ec644d5ef204c01b6
United States v. United States Gypsum Co. United States v. United States Gypsum Co. was a patent–antitrust case in which the United States Supreme Court decided, first, in 1948, that a patent licensing program that fixed prices of many licensees and regimented an entire industry violated the antitrust laws, and then, decided in 1950, after a remand, that appropriate relief in such cases did not extend so far as to permit licensees enjoying a compulsory, reasonable–royalty license to challenge the validity of the licensed patents. The Court also ruled, in "obiter dicta", that the United States had standing to challenge the validity of patents when a patentee relied on the patents to justify its fixing prices. It held in this case, however, that the defendants violated the antitrust laws irrespective of whether the patents were valid, which made the validity issue irrelevant.
12382da34f89d237f6f2b6ece2aa74b9
Baker v. Carr Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that decided that redistricting (attempts to change the way voting districts are delineated) issues present justiciable questions, thus enabling federal courts to intervene in and to decide redistricting cases. The defendants unsuccessfully argued that redistricting of legislative districts is a "political question", and hence not a question that may be resolved by federal courts.
c7f398d63f4b8d41521b64b8a408c635
C-146/13 and C-147/13 In decisions in the cases C-146/13 and C-147/13 issued in May 2015, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rejected two challenges by Spain against the legality of both unitary patent regulations. The decisions are significant because these legal challenges were regarded as "the last serious obstacle to the Unitary Patent Package being implemented", "provided the necessary number of ratifications of the Unified Patent Court Agreement occur (13 including UK, France and Germany)."
d72e8bb60b2323cef0d45c30d968bb65
Lex Antonia Lex Antonia (Latin for "Antonine law", sometimes presented plurally as the leges Antoniae, "Antonine laws") was a law established in ancient Rome in April 44 BC. It was proposed by Mark Antony and passed by the Roman Senate, following the assassination of Julius Caesar. It formally abolished the Dictatorship. It was the second law to do so (the first being passed after the Second Punic War, replacing the Dictatorship with the final decree of the Senate); however, the earlier law had essentially been nullified by the subsequent Dictatorships of Sulla and Caesar.
a092e54c3b629d1c493e16333f9a2cd1
Stettinius v. United States Stettinius v. United States, 13,387 (D.C. Cir. 1839), was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that was handed down November, 1839. It reversed the conviction of a defendant for unlawfully passing paper currency, because the indictment did not properly aver, and the verdict did not properly find, that the notes he had allegedly passed were indeed paper currency.
269005bfe9f9fce38c0a7f1383efb2c0
Diamond v. Charles Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (1986) , was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that citizens do not have Article III standing to challenge the constitutionality of a state statute in federal court unless they possess a "direct stake" in the outcome.
5a11383ac47cdd1279679b320feff5c0
Tribal Assembly The Tribal Assembly or Assembly of the People ("comitia populi tributa") of the Roman Republic was an assembly consisting of all Roman citizens convened by the tribes (tributim). During the Roman Republic, citizens were organized on the basis of 35 tribes: four urban tribes of the citizens in the city of Rome, and 31 rural tribes of citizens outside the city. The tribes gathered in the Tribal Assembly to vote on legislative, judicial and electoral matters. Each tribe voted separately and one after the other. In each tribe, decisions were made by majority vote and its decision counted as one vote regardless of how many electors each tribe held. Once a majority of tribes voted in the same way on a given measure, the voting ended and the matter was decided. The president of the Tribal Assembly was usually either a "consul" or a "praetor". The Tribal Assembly elected the "quaestors", and the "curule aediles". it conducted trials for non-capital punishment cases. However, the Roman Dictator Lucius Cornelius Sulla reassigned this to special jury courts ("quaestiones perpetuae") in 82 BC. There are disagreements among modern historians regarding the number and nature of the tribal assembly (see below).
8b54a03a653bb398a32b6d8d2b802960
Southland Corp. v. Keating Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 (1984) , is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning arbitration. It was originally brought by 7-Eleven franchisees in California state courts, alleging breach of contract by the chain's then parent corporation. Southland pointed to the arbitration clauses in their franchise agreements and said it required disputes to be resolved that way; the franchisees cited state franchising law voiding any clause in an agreement that required franchisees to waive their rights under that law. A 7-2 majority held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applied to contracts executed under state law.
b3cb0f8354714f16fd636f30067ddbff
In re Ross In re Ross or Ross v. McIntyre, 140 U.S. 453 (1891) , was a United States Supreme Court case decided on May 21, 1891. It dealt with the application of US law by United States consular courts over foreign sailors on US-flagged ships in countries where the United States exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction.
14a9303b197ef401504c48eddca7950a
Louisiana v. United States (1965) Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145 (1965) , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that dealt with an "interpretation test" permitted by the Louisiana Constitution of 1921 alleged to deprive Louisiana Negroes of voting rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1971(a) and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
a8c161d57740f528c419eff1f200e4bd
Black v. United States Black v. United States, 561 U.S. 465 (2011) , is a white-collar criminal law case decided by the United States Supreme Court dealing with businessman Conrad Black's fraud trial. Along with two companion cases—"Skilling v. United States" and "Weyhrauch v. United States"—it dealt with the honest services provision,  /1346 § 1346  .
07c9bca4b657b8ba8a80a24e4ececf95
Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia Landmark Communications v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court case that was argued on January 11, 1978 and decided on May 1, 1978.
300ca7451cd40eb0510b102c8dd8aaca
Byrne v. Ireland was a case decided by the Supreme Court of Ireland that is important because it abolished the immunity of the State in tort, meaning that the State could be sued for the actions of its servants. The case also determined that the Attorney General was the appropriate party to represent the State in these tort cases.
1006d836a37664920437a7583b6883f7
Centumviral court The centumviral court (centumviri) was the chancery court (court of equity) of ancient Rome. It was a court of justice dealing with private law (what is referred to in common law systems as civil law).
bc96c2cc54f2588b7ede24a73d3c5cd8
R v Finta R v Finta, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 701 is a case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court found that a 45-year delay before charging an individual under the crimes against humanity provisions of the Criminal Code does not fall within the meaning of "unreasonable delay" under the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms". The period for "unreasonable delay" begins from the point that charges are laid.
5d83c538d0748d02cfcc4a2d6d22ddd2
Burch v. Louisiana Burch v. Louisiana, 441 U.S. 130 (1979), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court that invalidated a Louisiana statute allowing a conviction upon a nonunanimous verdict from a jury of six for a petty offense. The statute allowed for conviction if only five jurors agreed, and this was held to be a violation of the Sixth Amendment.
0f11709fc54a53385533702dd17e3979
Telstra Corporation Ltd v Commonwealth Telstra Corporation Limited v The Commonwealth was an important case decided in the High Court of Australia on 6 March 2008.