Answer:
The three types of persuasive authority which judges may use in cases of first impression are higher, peers, or lower courts in the hierarchy, or from other jurisdictions.
Explanation:
A case of first impression is an issue where the parties disagree on what the applicable law is, and there is no prior binding authority, so that the matter has to be decided for the first time. A first impression case may be a first impression in only a particular jurisdiction.
By definition, a case of first impression cannot be decided by precedent. Since there is no precedent for the court to follow, the court uses the plain language and legislative history of any statute that must be interpreted, holdings of other jurisdictions, persuasive authority and analogies from prior rulings by other courts, commentaries and articles by legal scholars, and the court's own logic and sense of justice.
The correct answer to this question is "central government." As a result of the British North American Act of 1867, Canada had its own central government. Thank you for posting your question. I hope that this answer helped you. Let me know if you need more help.
Answer: oil
explanation: in canada and the us it is written that oil is found within the list of resources, but is missing in the list for mexico.
Answer:
A: A concurring opinion agrees with the majority opinion; a dissenting opinion disagrees with it.
Explanation:
Dissenting opinions serve several purposes. They can help to achieve an appeal review of the case by the full court or by recovering the case materials, verify and clarify issues for a subsequent appeal. With their help, it is possible to achieve the adoption of legislation to make up for possible shortcomings in the rule of law. Dissenting opinions can also help narrow the scope of the decision by pointing out the possible dangers of the majority position, or inform other judges and the bar attorneys about the limitations of any decision and its effect on similar cases in the future. Thus, dissenting opinions can serve as a useful tool in bringing important information to the attention of those interested in judicial decisions and to promote the development of law
.
Concurring opinions are appropriate when they are aimed at achieving greater accuracy in the issue of the impact of the decision, or in this way informing the parties and other audience about important points in the opinion of the author. Thus, judges can give concurring opinions in the case when there are two reasons for the decision, and the majority justifies its decision only on the basis of one of them, and the other judges consider that alternative reasons must also be indicated. The concurring opinion shall include an indication of the reasons for agreeing with the majority opinion. The point is not to present an alternative opinion to the majority opinion, but to indicate the point of difference with it and further outline the contours of the decision.
