Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



Tags
#constitution #law #public
Question
[ case ] In this case Wauchope claimed to have been unlawfully denied his property rights as the result of a statute that had been passed. He claimed that he had not been given proper notice of the impending legislation (in accordance with existing parliamentary standing orders, which were designed to protect affected landowners prior to an enactment). However, the court rejected his argument that the procedural irregularity could render the Act void. Lord Campbell stated:

'… all that a court of justice can look to is the parliamentary roll; they see that an Act has passed both Houses of Parliament, and that it has received the royal assent, and no court of justice can inquire into the manner in which it was introduced into Parliament, what was done previously to its being introduced, or what passed in Parliament during the various stages of its progress through both Houses …'

Answer
Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway v Wauchope (1842) 8 ER 279 (HL)

Tags
#constitution #law #public
Question
[ case ] In this case Wauchope claimed to have been unlawfully denied his property rights as the result of a statute that had been passed. He claimed that he had not been given proper notice of the impending legislation (in accordance with existing parliamentary standing orders, which were designed to protect affected landowners prior to an enactment). However, the court rejected his argument that the procedural irregularity could render the Act void. Lord Campbell stated:

'… all that a court of justice can look to is the parliamentary roll; they see that an Act has passed both Houses of Parliament, and that it has received the royal assent, and no court of justice can inquire into the manner in which it was introduced into Parliament, what was done previously to its being introduced, or what passed in Parliament during the various stages of its progress through both Houses …'

Answer
?

Tags
#constitution #law #public
Question
[ case ] In this case Wauchope claimed to have been unlawfully denied his property rights as the result of a statute that had been passed. He claimed that he had not been given proper notice of the impending legislation (in accordance with existing parliamentary standing orders, which were designed to protect affected landowners prior to an enactment). However, the court rejected his argument that the procedural irregularity could render the Act void. Lord Campbell stated:

'… all that a court of justice can look to is the parliamentary roll; they see that an Act has passed both Houses of Parliament, and that it has received the royal assent, and no court of justice can inquire into the manner in which it was introduced into Parliament, what was done previously to its being introduced, or what passed in Parliament during the various stages of its progress through both Houses …'

Answer
Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway v Wauchope (1842) 8 ER 279 (HL)
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway v Wauchope (1842) 8 ER 279 (HL) In this case Wauchope claimed to have been unlawfully denied his property rights as the result of a statute that had been passed. He claimed that he had not been given proper notice of t

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Details

No repetitions


Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.