Courts principles

It is not laid down by statute but rather is found as an accumulation of decisions made by judges in individual cases. This process is referred to as a precedent whereby as each case is decided in court principles of law are established. 

Other courts addressing this problem have refused to adopt a rule of proportional recovery. Some have asserted that such a fundamental change of a basic tort principle is more appropriately a legislative function. Others have expressed concern that the long latency period renders any reconstmction of market shares highly speculative. The Restatement notes the opposing views but takes no position on this controversial issue. 

U.S. Supreme Court. 358 U.S. 153, Dec. 15, 1958. The court ruling that established the harmless per se principle that a color additive had to be harmless regardless of the quantity used. 

This principle of property-in-whiteness was upheld in less known cases as well. When another Syrian, Faras Shahid, petitioned for citizenship in South Carolina (1913), the court observed that in color, he is about that of walnut, or somewhat darker than is the usual mulatto of one half mixed blood between the white and the negro races. Such an assessment did not bode well in South Carolina. The case quickly boiled down to the... 

The acceptance of the Substitution Principle as a workable legal act was demonstrated in a European Court of Justice (ECJ) court case in 2000. Trichloroethylene (TRI), a cancer-causing chemical, was banned in Sweden and companies had to find alternatives. Exemptions were only given when a suitable alternative was not available, when use did not lead to unacceptable exposure and on the condition that the company continued to seek alternatives. Forthe majority of exemptions, the firms had managed to substitute TRI in most of their production, but had not found a suitable alternative for a specific use in the production process. One firm appealed against the ban, but the European Court of Justice ruled against them. The ECJ ruling demonstrates acceptance of the Substitution Principle in EU courts. 

The principle of using the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the decision to search is reasonable may indicate judicial deference to the practical difficulties of making such decisions in a matter of moments (such as when a person will soon have left the area). In United States v. Awizu (2002), the Court in a unanimous decision came to a similar conclusion involving a stop made by a border patrol officer. 

That general principle aside, the Court concluded that Congress had,... 

Finally, the Cooperative contends that we should construe the Controlled Substances Act to include a medical necessity defense in order to avoid what it considers to be difficult constitutional questions. In particular, the Cooperative asserts that, shorn of a medical necessity defense, the statute exceeds Congress Commerce Clause powers, violates the substantive due process rights of patients, and offends the fundamental liberties of the people under the Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. As the Cooperative acknowledges, however, the canon of constitutional avoidance has no application in the absence of statutory ambiguity. Because we have no doubt that the Controlled Substances Act cannot bear a medical necessity defense to distributions of marijuana, we do not find guidance in this avoidance principle. Nor do we consider the underlying constitutional issues today. Because the Court of Appeals did not address these claims, we decline to do so in the first instance. 

The liglit-scattering principle of cell court dug is based on the observadon that microscopic particles, such as blood cells, scatter into small (0 15°) angles, most of the visible light incident upon them. This principle is used to count red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets. In the basic form of the fight-scattering method, a dilute suspension of cells and a sheathing... 

It is significant also that my membership in the Republikaner, which ended in the summer of 1991, was later used by the District Court Stuttgart as an indicator of my political mania— in full knowledge of what I have just described. Nowadays, support for the maintenance of constitutional political principles is deemed reprehensible, if not outright illegal. Further comments are superfluous. 

The court had not examined whether or not this letter existed, therefore, on the principle In dubio pro reo." it had to assume that it did exist. In fact, not just Remer but also many other activists had photocopies of the letter which Remer s friend had reproduced in the appendix to Remer s version. It is a fact that there is a large number of statements from witnesses attesting to homicidal gassing in Dachau, but it is also well known that both the official Dachau Concentration Camp Museum as well as the City of Dachau clearly state that there were never any homicidal gassings of humans in this concentration... 

Now, let s turn our attention to the second component of the utility requirement, which requires that the claimed subject matter must be useful. As one court opined a simple everyday word [such as useful] can be pregnant with ambiguity when applied to the facts of life. 7 The contours of the utility requirement can be defined by two principles. First, the claimed invention must have specific and substantial utility and must provide sufficient information to make its use readily apparent to those familiar with the technological field of the invention. 8 Second, the alleged utility must be credible. 

To the Court this was an important admission as it rebutted an earlier assertion by the inventor s representatives that structure-activity relationship principles would have completely discouraged skilled artisans from preparing the separate isomers of the racemic mixture (ofloxacin) or from reasonably expecting that one enantiomer would exhibit greater activity than the racemic mixture. The publication also indicated that... 

Free allocation of allowances probably qualifies as State aid under the State Aids Directive (Johnston, this issue). Countries may thus have to make State aid declarations (otherwise, allocations could be challenged in national courts). State aid could be justified as a compensation for forgone profits due to the environmental regulation, but in this situation the proportionality principle applies - the amount of State aid should be proportional to the forgone profit. To the extent that profits may be deemed to amount to excessive compensation, this may create considerable legal pressures to reduce the scale of free allocations. 

The second of these points is significant, because failure to notify the aid renders its grant unlawful this has consequences for possible court action to require the repayment of such aid (see Section 4.1.2). The last of these points raises the important question of the application of the EC law principle of proportionality in the State aids field we must now consider the operation and significance of this element in the analysis. 

---