Case Notes

be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at

the charge, and went to trial. During her trial, no search warrant was ever produced. The judge stated that there was considerable doubt as to whether there ever

The case involving Birch & Davis International, Inc., and Warren M. Christopher, the United States Secretary of State was decided on September 13th, 1993. The case involved procurement procedures conducted by the Agency of International Development (Open Jurist). The issue centered on exclusion of bids made by Birch & Davis International, Inc. Birch challenged the exclusion to the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals and they decided that the actions taken by the agency were fair. The case got to the Federal level when Birch appealed the decision by the board.

“This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme

Facts of the case (Summary of facts of case and its journey to Supreme Court)

(c) deleting ‘unconditional’ from paragraph 69(d) of the Standard so that ‘an unconditional right’ is replaced by ‘a right’.

Judicial discretion requires the judge to choose between ‘several different, but equally valid, courses of action’. Discretion is ‘the space … between legal rules in which legal actors may exercise choice’. Addressing autonomy and personal opinion, however, it must be acknowledged that judicial decisions should be made with reference to legal standards rather than undirected considerations of fairness. These legal standards include guidelines, principles, comparison to a list of relevant factors, as well as the doctrine of

The Amadio’s appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia before Chief Justice King, Zelling and Jacobs JJ. The Amadio’s ordered the guarantee be set aside. Their Honours held that it was within the banks responsibility to inform and reveal to the Amadio’s the accounts exceeded overdraft limit, however, the bank failed to perform required obligations. Furthermore, it was held that the bank was liable for the misrepresentation conducted by Vincenzo Amadio, additionally, identifying the transaction being of unconscionable dealings on equitable

Although we live in a nation that places a premium value on personal freedom, it is also a nation whose population considers its own safety and welfare as paramount rights. This creates a need for some measure of public order. Such public order mechanisms are typically expressed in the form of laws. The laws of the United States are an attempt to balance the desire for individual freedoms with the desire for universal safety. (D'Augostino, 2008)

The book “The Craft of Research” defines a warrant as “a statement that connects a reason to a claim.” In other words, if someone makes a claim, he should have valid reasons -- or enough data -- to support that claim. The reason needs to have relevance to the claim. If the relevance of the reason, or warrant, not accepted, then there is room for disagreement as to the reasoning for the claim

In the article of “It should be, therefore it is”1, its author, Charles Foster examined the surprise House of Lords judgment in Chester v Afshar2, what he described as “an exercise in

This judgment is in the context of Locus Standi, or standing, of petitioners in public interest cases. Another important aspect of this judgment is its ruling on disclosure of government documents in courts proceedings. Sometimes it might become necessary to produce these documents to discover the intention of the government and to test whether the decision was taken legally. In such situations, a reading of this judgment would be very helpful.

Section 462.32(1) of the Criminal Code entitled searc and seizure of proceeds of crime deals with search warrants in regards to locations where authorities believe that assets or monies of illegal activities are located. The major thing to note within this section is that the law has supreme power over the citizens in which it governs, due to the fact that at any time, with sufficient evidence, whatever that may be, authorities can suspend your rights as a citizen and search your property. The only section, beyond sections that deal with privacy within the Charter that can be invoked, is that of section 8, which is illegal search and seizure. Essentially this means that there was a lack of evidence to attain a search warrant or the

He also held that it is a well established principle that a rule of the common law is not extinguished by a statute unless the statute makes this clear by express provision or by clear implication. The powers for search and seizure in s18 and s19 of PACE only applied to domestic offences leaving common law powers unmolested for extraditable offences.

In the first two weeks of interning at The District Court of Allahabad under Adv. R.P. Gupta I was asked to read order VI, VII, VII of the CPC, 1908 to understand the requirements of the Plaint, Pleading, Written Statement and Counter Claim.