Unreasonableness - Law Dictionary Search Results
Home Dictionary Name: unreasonablenessUnreasonable
Unreasonable, means not according to reason, not conformable to reason, exceeding the bounds of reason. Unreasonableness is not confined to culpability or callous indifference, it can include where carried in excess, sentimentality, romanticisus, bigotry, wild prejudice, caprice, fatuousness or absolute lack of commonsense, Kamrup Paper Ltd. v. Assam State Electricity Board, (1995) 3 Gau LR 225....
unreasonable
unreasonable : not reasonable : beyond what can be accepted: as a : clearly inappropriate, excessive, or harmful in degree or kind [an delay] [an restraint of trade] b : lacking justification in fact or circumstance [an inference] ;esp : irrational [the agency decision was ] c : not supported by a warrant or by a valid exception to a warrant requirement (as when there is reasonable suspicion) and therefore unconstitutional [the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against searches and seizures, shall not be violated "U.S. Constitution amend. IV"] see also search, seizure un·rea·son·able·ness n un·rea·son·ably adv ...
unreasonably dangerous
unreasonably dangerous ...
Unreasonableness
Unreasonableness, is sometimes used to denote particularly extreme behaviour, such as acting in bad faith, or a decision which is 'perverse' or 'absure' - implying that the decision - maker has - 'taken leave of his senses', Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 5th Edn., p. 549....
use
use 1 a : an arrangement in which property is granted to another with the trust and confidence that the grantor or another is entitled to the beneficial enjoyment of it see also trust Statute of Uses in the Important Laws section NOTE: Uses originated in early English law and were the origin of the modern trust. Uses became popular in medieval England, where they were often secretly employed as a method of evading laws (as those prohibiting mortmain) and penalties (as attainder) and to defeat creditors. In response, the Statute of Uses was enacted in 1535. The purpose of the Statute was to execute the use, investing the legal ownership of the property in the cestui que use, or one entitled to the beneficial enjoyment, and abolishing the ownership of the grantee. The Statute did not have blanket application, however. Certain uses, particularly those in which the grantee was not merely a passive holder of the property, were not executed under the Statute. These uses were called trust...
Irrationality
Irrationality, mean what can by now be succinctly referred to Wednesbury unreasonableness, Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, (1984) 3 All ER 935: 1985 AC 374: (1984) 3 WLR 1174 (HL).Means what can be now be succinctly referred to as Wednesbury unreasonableness. It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it, State of NCT of Delhi v. Sanjeev, (2005) 5 SCC 181.Means what can by now be succinctly referred to as Wednesbury unreasonableness. It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it, Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, (1984) 3 All ER 935: 1985 AC 374: (1984) 3 WLR 1174 (HL...
Such consent, however
Such consent, however, not to be unreasonably.... person, such consent, however, not to be unreason-ably withheld in the case of respectable or responsible person.... These words in the lease deed did not amount to a separate or independent covenant by the lessor that he would not refuse consent except upon reasonable grounds in the case of respectable or responsible person, but only limited or qualified the lessees covenant not to assign without the lessor's consent by relieving him form the burden of the covenant if the lessor withheld his consent unreasonably in the case of proposed assignment to a respectable or responsible person, Kamala Ranjan Roy v. Baijnath Bajoria, AIR 1951 SC 1: (1950) SCR 840...
invasion of privacy
invasion of privacy :the tort of unjustifiably intruding upon another's right to privacy by appropriating his or her name or likeness, by unreasonably interfering with his or her seclusion, by publicizing information about his or her private affairs that a reasonable person would find objectionable and in which there is no legitimate public interest, or by publicizing information that unreasonably places him or her in a false light see also privacy compare right of privacy, zone of privacy ...
nuisance
nuisance [Anglo-French nusaunce, from Old French nuire to harm, from Latin nocēre] : something (as an act, object, or practice) that invades or interferes with another's rights or interests (as the use or enjoyment of property) by being offensive, annoying, dangerous, obstructive, or unhealthful at·trac·tive nuisance 1 : a thing or condition on one's property that poses a risk to children who may be attracted to it without realizing the risk by virtue of their youth 2 : a doctrine or theory employed in most jurisdictions: a possessor of property may be liable for injury caused to a trespassing or invited child by a condition on the property if he or she failed to use ordinary care in preventing such injury (as by fencing in a pool) and had reason to foresee entry by the child and if the utility of the condition was minor compared to the likelihood of injury [declined to extend the doctrine of attractive nuisance…to moving trains "Honeycutt v. City of Wichita,...
Bees
Bees, includes at any stage in their life cycle, Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 2, 4th Edn., Para 529, p. 428.These are fer' natur' and the property in them is ratione soli; but a person retains the ownership in a swarm which flies from his land so long as he can keep them in sight and has the power to pursue them, even though the pursuit involve a trespass. If they take refuge on the land of another and he in due course reclaims them, then that person obtains a property in them propter industriam. See 2 Bl. Com. 392. The negligent keeping of bees in unreasonable numbers, at an unreasonable place, and with appreciable danger will render their owner liable for damage which they may cause, O'Gorman v. O'Gorman (1903) 2 IR 573. As to the bee pest in Ireland, see (English) Bee Pest Prevention (Ireland) Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 34)....
- << Prev.
- Next >>
Sign-up to get more results
Unlock complete result pages and premium legal research features.
Start Free Trial