Lists of landmark court decisions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with English-speaking countries and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. |
 |
This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2009) |
Landmark court decisions establish new precedents that establish a significant new legal principal or concept, or otherwise substantially change the interpretation of existing law. Lists of landmark decisions by jurisdiction and by area of law follow.
Contents |
[edit] Landmark decisions in Australia
- Main articles: List of High Court of Australia cases and List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases
Landmark decisions 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 1992 Eddie Mabo & Ors v The State of Queensland (No.2) invalidated the declaration of terra nullius.
[edit] Landmark decisions in Canada
- Main articles: List of Supreme Court of Canada cases and List of Judicial Committees of the Privy Council cases
Landmark decisions in Canada are have usually been made by the Supreme Court of Canada, although historically some have been made by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London.
[edit] Aboriginal rights
- R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1. S.C.R. 1075
- Delgamuukw v. British Columbia [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010
- R. v. Marshall [1999] 3 SCR 45
[edit] Abortion
R. v. Morgentaler [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30
[edit] Equality
- Egan v. Canada [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513
- Law v. Canada [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497
[edit] Freedom of Expression
- Ford v. Quebec (A.G.) [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712
- Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General) [1989]
- R. v. Zundel, [1992] 2 SCR 731
- R. v. Sharpe [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45
[edit] Landmark decisions in the United Kingdom
- Main articles: List of House of Lords cases
Landmark decisions in the United Kingdom have usually been made by the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords, and the High Court of Justice of England and Wales. Many twentieth century examples have involved contributions from the late Lord Denning. 'Landmark decision' as a term is not usually used in England and Wales. The usual term is 'leading case'.
- Darcy v. Allein (1603) 77 Eng. Rep. 1260 (King’s Bench) (most widely know as The Case of Monopolies): establishing that it was improper for any individual to be allowed to have a monopoly over a trade.
- The Case of Prohibitions (1607) (Court of Common Pleas)
- Bushel's Case (1670) (Court of Common Pleas): establishing the principle that a judge cannot coerce a jury to convict.
- Entick v. Carrington (1765) 19 Howell's State Trials 1030: establishing the civil liberties of individuals and limiting the scope of executive power.
- Tulk v. Moxhay(1848) 41 ER 1143: establishing that in certain cases a restrictive covenant can "run with the land" (i.e. bind a future owner) in equity.
- Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch. 341 (Court of Exchequer): establishing the extent to which a party in breach of contract is liable for the damages.
- Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330: establishing a doctrine of strict liability for some inherently dangerous activities.
- Foakes v. Beer [1884] 9 A.C. 605: establishing the rule that prevents parties from discharging a contractual obligation by part performance.
- The Moorcock 14 P.D. 64 (1889): establishing the concept of implied terms in contract law.
- Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256: establishing the test for formation of a contract.
- Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v. Selfridge and Co. Ltd. [1915] A.C. 847: confirming privity of contract: only a party to a contract can be sued on it.
- Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] S.C.(H.L.) 31: establishing the "neighbour principle" as the foundation of the modern tort (Scottish delict) of negligence.
- Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd [1947] K.B. 130: establishing the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
- Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223: estalishing the concept of Wednesbury unreasonableness for judicial review.
- Hedley Byrne v. Heller [1963] 2 All E.R. 575: establishing liability for pure economic loss, absent any contract, arising from a negligent statement.
- Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1 QB 439: a leading case illustrating the requirement for concurrence of actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") and mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") in order to establish a criminal offence.
- Ramsay v. IRC [1982] A. C. 300: establishing a doctrine that ignores for tax purposes the purported effect of a pre-ordained series of transactions into which there are inserted steps that have no commercial purpose apart from the avoidance of a liability to tax.
- Furniss v. Dawson [1984] A.C. 474: establishing that tax can be levied on the results of a composite transaction, even if steps that are only there for the purpose of avoiding tax do not cancel each other out.
- Factortame case (1990): the European Court of Justice ruled that the House of Lords was required to suspend an Act of Parliament that infringed EC law.
[edit] Landmark decisions in the United States
Landmark cases in the United States come most frequently (but not exclusively) from the United States Supreme Court. United States Courts of Appeal may also make such decisions, particularly if the Supreme Court chooses not to review the case, or adopts the holding of the court below. Although many cases from state supreme courts are significant in developing the law of that state, only a few are so revolutionary that they announce standards that many other state courts then choose to follow.
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
- Supreme Court Landmark Decisions — Cornell Law School
