A prescriptive right is essentially one that is created by uncontested assertion of the right for a given period of time. The principle is based in many ways on a sort of estoppel in rem.
In India, the Limitation Act, 1963 is the legislation that governs the period within which suits are to be filed, with relevant provisions for delay, condonation thereof etc. The principle that pervades statutes of limitation at common law is that ‘limitation extinguishes the remedy, but not the right' this means that the legal right itself is not defeated, but only the right to claim it in a court of law is extinguished. he Limitation Act, 1963, prescribed limitation with a view to see that a litigant does not drag on the litigation. Section 5 gives an opportunity
…show more content…
(3) No suit instituted against the Government or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity shall be dismissed merely by reason of any error or defect in the notice referred to in sub-section (1), if in such notice
(a) The name, description and the residence of the plaintiff had been so given as to enable the appropriate authority or the public officer to identify the person serving the notice and such notice had been delivered or left at the office of the appropriate authority specified in sub-section (1),
…show more content…
In order to enable the Government or the public officer to arrive at a decision it is necessary that it or he should be informed of the nature of the suit projected to be filed against it or him and the facts on which the claim is founded and the precise relief asked for.
Though the words of this section are to be strictly complied with, that does not mean that the terms of the notice should be inspected in the pedantic manner or in manner completely divorced from common sense.
Essential Requirements:
The three essential requirements of S. 80 are: first, the addressee should be identified and must have received the communication; secondly, there should be no ambiguity or vagueness about the person giving the notice, who must also be the person filing the suit and the notice must also give the details which are specified in S. 80; and, thirdly, the two months’ time allowed must expire before the suit is laid.
Once these requirements are fulfilled minor details like the wrong explanation of the person to whom the statement is addressed should not make it an inappropriate notice which does not comply with the requirements of S. 80,
The City of Houston then filed a timely appeal stating that they did not receive timely notice of the alleged violation and that the liability of Bozeman should rest with Bozeman and not be imputed to the City as having been notified of the complaint allegations. 5. Main issue: Does notifying an immediate supervisor who is not considered “upper management” satisfy the requirement of notification to the agency that in turn creates a situation of vicarious liability to the agency if they do not act on the alleged complaint? 6. Court Deciding:
Peter Crumans 4th amendments were not violated when he was compelled to show his Facebook page. School officials were trying to protect the wellbeing of their students, therefore trying to get to the bottom of what this tip was about and needed to search the suspected student who after a little persistence began to cooperate. Principal Lyons received an anonymous tip that Peter Curman had posted that he would be conducting a few sales of illegal drugs on school property giving him reasonable suspicion to search the student. In the case of New Jersey vs. T.L.O school officials were able to search a student due to reasonable suspicion for violations on school property, therefore giving principal Lyons justification because he not only received
And, it is not over yet because, in violation of the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause, Solomon did not receive notification of the forfeiture against property where he had an interest. At all times, the government knew that he was incarcerated in either the county or the U.S. Penitentiary. The rules that authorize service of process of notice upon inmates subject to forfeiture via a newspaper publication is not sufficient legal notice because inmates do not have access to receiving or reviewing the notice. Furthermore, the posting of the notice at a local courthouse where they are denied access to view the publication is not legally sufficient notice.
This dysfunction where significant conflict and a lack of cooperation between the Minister’s Office and DHS will lead to the Minister being unable to perform his job properly. It is imperative for the Minister to have a constructive working relationship with the department and confidence with the DLOs within the Office. This relationship is usually based on a common commitment to serve the Minister with sound policy advice. DHS and the DLOs provide the Minister and his Office with their in-depth knowledge and a long term perspective with proper due process followed. The APS is compliant under transparency and accountability whereas the Minister’s Office is not required to comply under this same ruling.
Name of Case: LaChance vs. Erickson Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court Parties and their roles:. LaChance, director, Office of Personnel Management petitioner; Erickson et al Responded Relevant facts: Federal employees made false statements to agency investigators with respect to their misbehavior. The legal issue(s) raised: The legal issue raised was that the respondents, federal employees were charged by their agencies because each of them made false statements to the agency investigators with respect to their misconduct.
In reviewing the new proposed law, it did not redact any part of the law but added a part to include acknowledgment in writing of the warning required under this section. I However, if the situation does not result in serious
It was Ricky Franklin Smith fourth offense, in which he was known as a habitual offender. He pleaded guilty to a charge of breaking and entering. During his hearing in the Court of Appeals, Smith suggested that he deserve a resentence due to the fact his charges was base upon his expunged juvenile criminal record. The Court of Appeals referred back to the case in People v. Price, 172 Mich App 396, 399-400; 431 NW2d 524 (1988) that suggested that in pursuant to MCR 5.913 when a juvenile record is expunged it cannot be used in a sentencing. Whereas, People v. Jones 173 Mich App 341, 343;433 NW2d 829 (1988) states that an expunged juvenile record can be included in an investigation report and in a sentencing(People v. Smith, 2017).
Per this rule, the issue is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. David Riley was driving with expired tags when he was arrested. The police impounded the car when they realized that his license was suspended. Policy states that when a car is impounded, an inventory search must be conducted. He was arrested for possession of loaded firearms.
To be honest I wouldn’t give up my freedom for increased security from terrorism. Benjamin Franklin stated, “They who would give up essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” I couldn’t have said it any better. We have been fighting for our rights for a very long time. Many people have died to ensure that people have liberties.
To be frank, the fourth amendment is a security blanket for American citizens; it protects them from illegal searches and seizures. The amendment was one of the first ten, which made up the original bill of rights in the constitution. Many were added to it since then, but the first ten remain extremely important. Without the fourth amendment, America and its citizens could be subject to searches and seizures at any time.
Constitutional Concerns Fourth Amendment Overview The constitutional concerns that surround home visits in the United States stem from the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (“Fourth Amendment”). The Fourth Amendment states that “[the] right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” As a result of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment stretches to government action on a state level.
Courts prove unsuccessful in achieving social change due to the constraints on the court’s power. Rosenburg’s assessment that courts are “an institution that is structurally challenged” demonstrates the Constrained Court view. In this view, the Court’s lack of judicial independence, inability to implement policies, and the limited nature of constitutional rights inhibit courts from producing real social reform. For activists to bring a claim to court, they must frame their goal as a right guaranteed by the constitution, leading to the courts hearing less cases (Rosenburg 11). The nature of the three branches also creates a system of checks and balances in which Congress or the executive branch can reverse a controversial decision, rendering the Court’s impact void.
Justice Abe Fortas believes certain kinds of speech should not be prohibited within an educational setting .Hugo black argues that one should not demonstrate when he pleases and where he pleases. Justice Abe Fortes argues that certain kinds of speech should not be prohibited within an educational setting. In the story there was plenty of points one is ,” The prohibition of expression of one particular opinion….is not constitutionally permissible. ”(Paragraph 8)
When it comes to policing there is a huge struggle power struggle between individual rights and public order. You want to keep individual rights, but you also want to keep public order while keeping the public safe. It may seem hard to keep the balance between these two, but doing so is of utter importance. Here are some examples of why it can be hard to balance individual rights and public order when dealing with policing.
Unit 307 Understand How to Handle Information in Social Care Settings Outcome 1 Understand requirements for handling information in social care settings 1.1 Identify legislation and codes of practice that relate to handling of information in social care settings; The legislation and codes of practice that relate to handling information in health and social care setting are- The data protection Act 1998- this Act makes provision for the regulation of the processing of information relating to individuals, including the obtaining, holding, use or disclosure of such information. The freedom of Information Act 2000- this created the right to access to the public of general information held by public authorities Code of Practice The General