Mr Abe, it writes, will not be granted a meeting with Mr Kim unless Japan drops its "inveterate repugnancy" that leads it to stress sanctions and pressure.
|
|
It will be up to the judge overseeing the New York case, Barry Ostrager, to determine whether Exxon's misrepresentations violated New York's securities law, but when it comes to the moral repugnancy of the company's climate deception, the verdict is in.
|
|
In United States v. Howell (1870), the Court held that a counterfeiting statute was not void for repugnancy, distinguishing United States v. Cantril (1807), a decision of the Marshall Court interpreting a nearly identical statute.United States v.
|
|
The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 ended the doctrine of repugnancy, and provided that United Kingdom laws would only have force in Australia at Australia's request. The Australia Act 1986 ended all legal ties between Australia and the United Kingdom. The Act, enacted by the Parliament of Australia and the Parliament of the United Kingdom, ended the ability of the United Kingdom to make laws for Australia or employ the doctrine of repugnancy, and stopped all remaining avenues of appeal to the Privy Council from Australian courts, unless authorised by the High Court of Australia.
|
|
Repugnancy costs were first mentioned in a debate between Alvin Roth and Julio Elias on whether there should be an official market for kidneys.Elias, Julio J. and Roth, Alvin E. (2007),"Econ One on One: A Market for Kidneys?" The Wall Street Journal Online. The act of buying and selling organs may be against one's cultural mores; it may be repugnant.
|
|
In common law, repugnancy refers to a contradiction or inconsistency between clauses of the same document, deed, or contract, or between allegations of the same pleading. In English law, the court will resolve contradictions in a document based on the primary intention of the parties; if this cannot be established, the court treats the earlier statement as effective in the case of a deed and the later statement as effective in the case of a will.
|
|
Also, it was not for the courts to substitute their judgement for that of the Secretary of State as to what was conducive to the peace, order and good government of the BIOT. The orders were not Wednesbury unreasonable on the facts, given the considerations of security and cost of resettlement. Finally, none of the orders was open to challenge in the British courts on the ground of repugnancy to any fundamental principle relating to the rights of abode of the Chagossians in the Chagos Islands.
|
|
Here also, the power of a state legislature to make laws on the same matter is not restricted. But, in case of repugnancy between a state law and a parliamentary law, the latter is to prevail. When States Make a Request: When the legislatures of two or more states pass resolutions requesting the Parliament to enact laws on a matter in the State List, then the Parliament can make laws for regulating that matter. A law so enacted applies only to those states which have passed the resolutions.
|
|
The degree to which Australia is and has been independent from the United Kingdom is a topic of much debate. The common view is that there has been an evolutionary process by which Australia has gained more and more independence. The 1926 Imperial Conference resulted in the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, and the Balfour Declaration 1926, which granted the Dominions equal status to the United Kingdom. However, laws passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom still had force in Australia, and laws passed by Australian parliaments would be invalid if they contradicted United Kingdom laws (the doctrine of repugnancy).
|
|
206 In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the case that forms the basis for the exercise of judicial review in America, Chief Justice John Marshall stated that "the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument". Marshall specifically used the words "void" and "repugnant", which has been characterised as a deliberate reference to Coke, but Marshall's principle involved repugnancy to the written Constitution.
|
|
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the Court's opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter. In his opinion, Justice Thomas reviewed the language of the different statutory provisions, concluding that while there was some overlap between the provisions of Section 158 and Sections 1291 and 1292, each section also covers some cases that the other would not. Thomas observed that "[r]edundancies across statutes are not unusual events in drafting, and so long as there is no "positive repugnancy" between two laws ... a court must give effect to both." Thomas asserted that the meaning of the statutes was clear from their wording.
|
|
The Appellate Division held that the matter was essentially one of interpretation: "I proceed to ascertain the common intention of the parties from the language used in the instrument."767D. According to the "golden rule," the language had to be given "its grammatical and ordinary meaning, unless this would result in some absurdity, or some repugnancy or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument."767D/E-F. The ordinary grammatical meaning of "book debt," the court found, citing the second edition of The Oxford English Dictionary, was a debt owed to a tradesman as recorded in his account books. The court noted, however, that a particular word or phrase ought never to be interpreted in vacuo.
|
|
Repugnancy of this kind would compel an adaptation of the common law to resolve the inconsistency. # The second possibility was that "a rule of the common law is not inconsistent with a specific constitutional provision but may fall short of its spirit, purport and objects." If so, "the common law must be adapted so that it grows in harmony with the 'objective normative value system' found in the Constitution." In a constitutional challenge of the first type the court must perform a "threshold analysis," being whether the rule limits an entrenched right, if the limitation is not reasonable and justifiable, the court itself is obliged to adapt, or develop the common law in order to harmonise it with the constitutional norm.
|
|
Thus it confirmed that colonial legislation (provided it had been passed in the proper manner) was to have full effect within the colony, limited only to the extent that it was not in contradiction with ("repugnant to") any Act of Parliament that contained powers which extended beyond the boundaries of the United Kingdom to include that colony. This had the effect of clarifying and strengthening the position of colonial legislatures, while at the same time restating their ultimate subordination to the Westminster Parliament. Until the passage of the Act, a number of colonial statutes had been struck down by local judges on the grounds of repugnancy to English laws, whether or not those English laws had been intended by Parliament to be effective in the colony. This had been a particular problem for the government in South Australia, where Justice Benjamin Boothby had struck down local statutes on numerous occasions in the colony's Supreme Court.
|
|