|
Landmark court decisions, in present day common law legal systems, establish precedents that determine a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially affect the interpretation of existing law. 'Leading case' is commonly used in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions instead of 'landmark case' as used in the United States.〔(Meaning of ''leading case'' in the English Dictionary )〕〔A. W. B. Simpson, ''Leading Cases in the Common Law'', Clarendon Press, 1996 ()〕 In Commonwealth countries, a reported decision is said to be a ''leading decision'' when it has come to be generally regarded as settling the law of the question involved. In 1914, Canadian jurist Augustus Henry Frazer Lefroy said "a 'leading case' () one that settles the law upon some important point."〔Augustus Henry Frazer Lefroy, ''Leading Cases in Canadian Constitutional Law.'' Toronto: Carswell, 1914, p. v.〕 A leading decision may settle the law in more than one way. It may do so by: * Distinguishing a new principle that refines a prior principle, thus departing from prior practice without violating the rule of ''stare decisis''; * Establishing a “test” (that is, a measurable standard that can be applied by courts in future decisions), such as the ''Oakes test'' (in Canadian law) or the ''Bolam test'' (in English law). * Sometimes, with regard to a particular provision of a written constitution, only one court decision has been made. By necessity, until further rulings are made, this ruling is the leading case. For example, in Canada, “()he leading case on voting rights and electoral boundary readjustment is ''Carter''. In fact, ''Carter'' is the only case of disputed electoral boundaries to have reached the Supreme Court.”〔Michael Pal and Sujit Choudry, “Is Every Ballot Equal? Visible Minority Vote Dilution in Canada”, ''IRPP Choices'' vol. 13, no. 1 (January 2007), p. 14.〕 The degree to which this kind of leading case can be said to have "settled" the law is less than in situations where many rulings have reaffirmed the same principle. == Landmark decisions in Australia == :''Main articles: List of High Court of Australia cases and List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases'' Decisions in leading cases in Australia have usually been made by the High Court of Australia, although historically some have been made by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. * In 1948 the High Court of Australia found that the Chifley government's legislation to nationalise Australia's private banks was unconstitutional. * In 1951 the High Court of Australia found that Robert Menzies' attempts to ban the Communist Party of Australia were unconstitutional. * In ''Eddie Mabo & Ors v The State of Queensland (No.2)'' invalidated the declaration of terra nullius. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Lists of landmark court decisions」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|