Judicial notice is a rule in the law of evidence that allows a fact to be introduced into evidence if the truth of that fact is so well known or established that it cannot be refuted. This is done upon the request of the party seeking to have the fact at issue determined by the court. Matters admitted under judicial notice are accepted without being formally introduced by a witness or any other rule of evidence‚ and even if one party wishes to lead evidence to the contrary. In India the concept
Premium Law Evidence law Jury
The area of law in which this question is concerned is judicial review. Judicial review can be defined as ‘… the means by which the Courts control the exercise of Governmental powers.’ The Courts will look at the way in which a decision was made‚ not the decision itself‚ to find out if any powers have been abused. Judicial review is an application to the Courts to assess an action or decision made by a public body on a point of public law. A particular decision may be found to be in breach of natural
Premium Law
previous times. JUDICIAL REFORMS Judicial reforms are the complete or partial political reform of a country or a country’s judiciary. These reforms are often done as a part of wider reforms of the country’s political system. Judicial reform usually aims to improve such things as law courts‚ advocacy (bar)‚ executor process‚ inquest and record keeping. Valery Dmitrievich Zorkin (2004) in his article “Twelve Theses and legal reforms in Russia” said “there was collaboration between judicial reforms and
Free Law Separation of powers Constitution
Judicial Decisions.The effective law making process of modern Malaysia Table of Content Introduction Malaysian Judiciary Judiciary Administration Law Making Process … … Conclusion Introduction History of Malaysian Law Different countries practices difference types of legal system. Some country practices one type of legal system while other practices the mixed legal system which means a combination of two or more legal systems. Malaysia for example‚ practices the mixed legal system which
Free Separation of powers Law
PRECEDENT: Stare Decisis - Stand by the Decision The doctrine of judicial precedent is based on the principle of stare decisis‚ this means that like cases should be treated alike. Once a point of law has been decided in a particular case‚ that law must be applied in all future cases containing the same material facts. For example in the case “Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)‚ The House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed the duty of care to the ultimate consumer of the product. This set a binding
Premium Stare decisis Appeal Common law
Judicial Discretion Judicial discretion refers to the authority that judges have for making and interpreting certain laws. Within the United States‚ judicial discretion is one of the fundamental tenants of the system of law‚ and is guaranteed in the United States Constitution. Both state and federal judges can exercise judicial discretion‚ although their discretion is not unlimited. This study focuses on a series of legal‚ extralegal‚ and systemic variables presumed to affect the workings of criminal-justice
Premium Law
that there is nothing constant in this world except change. The only difference could be the speed at which the wheels of transformation may spin. The idea of justice and the manner of its implementation are no exception to this universal rule. Judicial reforms should‚ therefore‚ be at the centre stage in the fast transforming world in which we live. It is imperative for enhancing the quality of justice that is at the core of human existence and welfare of any society. It is simply the fundamental
Premium Law Separation of powers Judge
Judicial precedent: A judgment of a court of law cited as an authority for deciding a similar set of facts; a case which serves as authority for the legal principle embodied in its decision. The common law has developed by broadening down from precedent to precedent. A judicial precedent is a decision of the court used as a source for future decision making. This is known as stare decisis (to stand upon decisions) and by which precedents are authoritative and binding and must be followed. In giving
Free Common law Precedent Stare decisis
Danyal Hasnain Justice Fazal Karim Constitutional Law 11th December‚ 2014. Assignment # 3 Question 1(a) Judicial review is usually defined as the judicial power in action or the practical aspect of the rule of law. It is defined as a doctrine according to which courts are entitled‚ in the exercise of the ‘judicial power’ of the State. The power of judicial review entails the authority to examine and decide the question of the constitutional validity of any law‚ irrespective of whether it comes from
Premium United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Law
Judicial Precedent Judicial precedent is the process whereby judges follow previously decided cases where the facts or point of law are sufficiently similar. It involves the following principles: First‚ stare decisis‚ which means to stand by the decided‚ whereby lower courts are bound to apply the legal principles set down by superior courts in earlier cases and appellate courts follow their own previous decisions. For example: The High Court must follow decisions of the Court of Appeal
Premium Stare decisis Case law Precedent