If one needs my-self to make my-self clear; then they have made a clear mis-take... Investopedia... free and clear is a slang phrase describing the situation of someone when they gain outright ownership of an asset: that is, it is completely paid off and no creditor has a claim on it. It most frequently applies to real property. LII/WEX - Cornell... Fighting Words Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality." Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Further, as seen below, the scope of the fighting words doctrine has between its creation in Chaplinsky and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it today. ________________ The Doctrine of Clear Mistake. A precautionary rule early formulated and at the base of the traditional concept of judicial restraint was expressed by Professor James Bradley Thayer to the effect that a statute could be voided as unconstitutional only “when those who have the right to make laws have not merely made a mistake, but have made a very clear one,—so clear that it is not open to rational question.” Whether phrased this way or phrased so that a statute is not to be voided unless it is unconstitutional beyond all reasonable doubt, the rule is of ancient origin and of modern adherence. In operation, however, the rule is subject to two influences, which seriously impair its efficacy as a limitation. First, the conclusion that there has been a clear mistake or that there is no reasonable doubt is that drawn by five Justices if a full Court sits. If five Justices of learning and detachment to the Constitution are convinced that a statute is invalid and if four others of equal learning and attachment are convinced it is valid, the convictions of the five prevail over the convictions or doubts of the four. Second, the Court has at times made exceptions to the rule in certain categories of cases. Statutory interferences with “liberty of contract” were once presumed to be unconstitutional until proved to be valid; more recently, presumptions of invalidity have expressly or impliedly been applied against statutes alleged to interfere with freedom of expression and of religious freedom, which have been said to occupy a “preferred position” in the constitutional scheme of things. ________________ last clear chance The last clear chance doctrine is used in tort law for cases involving negligence and is applied when both the plaintiff and defendant are responsible for an accident that resulted in harm. When applied in states with contributory negligence laws, it is often seen as a type of exception or limitation to those laws. The doctrine considers which party had the last opportunity to avoid the accident that caused the harm. Therefore, a negligent plaintiff may recover damages if they can show that the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. A defendant may also use the doctrine as a defense by showing that the plaintiff had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. Under some circumstances, a plaintiff who has negligently subjected themselves to a risk caused by a defendant’s subsequent negligence may still recover. For example, if the plaintiff cannot avoid the harm by exercising reasonable vigilance and care, or the defendant negligently fails to utilize with reasonable care and competence his opportunity to avoid the harm. To illustrate, in the old English case of Davies v. Mann, the plaintiff negligently tied his donkey near a road. The defendant hit and killed the donkey as he was riding his wagon along that road at a high speed. The plaintiff was able to recover against the defendant who killed the donkey because the defendant could have avoided the accident if he had used ordinary care. Although the plaintiff was negligent in leaving the donkey there, he was able to recover because the negligent defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. [Last updated in July of 2020 by the Wex Definitions Team]

Posted by El Hotepsekhemwy Pero at 2020-10-09 03:26:41 UTC