ratio (1 Viewer)

[sugared plum]

dissenting judge!!!!?????
there is no dissenting judge, they all agree appeal should be allowed



am i totally wrong

 

[spell check]

dissenting judge!!!!?????
there is no dissenting judge, they all agree appeal should be allowed



am i totally wrong

how can he know if there was a dissenting judge without knowing what case it is?

 

[Frigid]

how can he know if there was a dissenting judge without knowing what case it is?

hehe that's right... i have no idea which case ur referring to

 

[sugared plum]

oh thank christ for that.. sorry

 

[closetanarchist]

i think the obiter is "if the applicant were to prove to me that ice cream is unhealthy, it is" and two ratios: (1) ice cream is healthy (2) the burden of proof lies with the applicant: to prove otherwise.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

i think the obiter is "if the applicant were to prove to me that ice cream is unhealthy, it is" and two ratios: (1) ice cream is healthy (2) the burden of proof lies with the applicant: to prove otherwise.

Don't use the original example. There are no real principles of law being used so it is disingenuous to try and make a ratio out of it.

If you mean this example:

The applicant wishes to stop his child from eating ice-cream for dinner. The judge looks at the relevant law, and decides that the applicant does not have the legal right to do this. In coming to this decision the judge looked at the Nice Food Act, which stipulates that children have a fundamental right to eat "nice food" at dinner. It so happens that "nice food" is not defined in the act, and so the judge has to also decide if ice-cream is a "nice food". He decides that it is, and so accordingly the child has a right to eat it.

The ratio would be that:
(i) Ice-cream constitutes "nice food" for the purposes of the Nice Food Act.
(ii) Adults cannot prohibit their children from eating ice-cream for dinner.

 

[Lainee]

The ratio involves the statements of law necessary for the decision. The example is not very helpful, so let me remake the situation.

The applicant wishes to stop his child from eating ice-cream for dinner. The judge looks at the relevant law, and decides that the applicant does not have the legal right to do this. In coming to this decision the judge looked at the Nice Food Act, which stipulates that children have a fundamental right to eat "nice food" at dinner. It so happens that "nice food" is not defined in the act, and so the judge has to also decide if ice-cream is a "nice food". He decides that it is, and so accordingly the child has a right to eat it.

The ratio would be that:
(i) Ice-cream constitutes "nice food" for the purposes of the Nice Food Act.
(ii) Adults cannot prohibit their children from eating ice-cream for dinner.

In this example, how would you identify the Legal Issues?

Would it be: Does a parent have the right to stop his child eating ice-cream for dinner?

Or: 1. Does ice-cream constiture 'nice food' for the purposes of the Nice Food Act?
2. Can adults prohibit their children from eating ice-cream for dinner?

Or a combination of both?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

In this example, how would you identify the Legal Issues?

Would it be: Does a parent have the right to stop his child eating ice-cream for dinner?

Or: 1. Does ice-cream constiture 'nice food' for the purposes of the Nice Food Act?
2. Can adults prohibit their children from eating ice-cream for dinner?

Or a combination of both?

Number one is an issue. Number two is simply the outcome sought after. If you think about it, there could be other means upon which they could have argued the same thing. The legal issues are the matters important in coming to the decision, hence the decision (the parent not being able to let their child eat ice-cream for dinner) is not an issue.

 

[Lainee]

So that means when you're identifying the ratio, you're kind of looking for the 'answers' that were given for each legal issue?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

So that means when you're identifying the ratio, you're kind of looking for the 'answers' that were given for each legal issue?

Yes, you can think of it in that way (so long as the legal issues were necessary in reaching the decision).