Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

How this document has been cited

—a minister' s certificate to the effect that disclosure would be contrary to the public interest was conclusive.
- in Constitutional and administrative law and 16 similar citations
—held that a court could never question a claim to Crown privilege by the Crown if the claim was made in proper form; see also R
Privilege 91 The basis for the claim In England, the courts at one time took the view that a claim of public interest immunity by a Minister was conclusive
- in Evidence Essentials and 13 similar citations
"The essential matter is that the decision to object should be taken by the minister who is the political head of the department, and that he should have seen and considered the contents of the documents and himself have formed the view that on grounds of public interest they ought not to be produced...."
- in United States v. Reynolds, 1953 and 16 similar citations
Although this privilege can be traced back to Aaron Burr' s trial for treason, its modern use stems from British precedent established during World War II.
- in THE RECORD and 9 similar citations
—he upheld an objection taken by the Admiralty to the production of documents which included the contract for the hull and machinery of a submarine and a large number of plans and specifications which related to various parts of the vessel.
Lord Simon pointed out that what was then known as 'Crown privilege', now public interest immunity (PII), was not properly a branch of the law of privilege at all.
—entirely deferential to the executive government' s claims of PII in the national security context, accepting ministerial certificates as conclusive evidence that it would be contrary to the public interest to reveal certain national security-related information
The current approach can be discarded, provided that one is willing to accept the consequence, which would probably be a return to the pre Conway case law, whereby the courts accepted executive determination of the public interest in the manner exemplified by Duncan
- in The nature of reasonableness review and 8 similar citations
—the Court concluded that a hearing at which a judge had private communications with one party violates what the Court stated was “a first principle of justice that the judge should have no dealings on the matter in hand with one litigant save in the presence of and to the equal knowledge of the other

Cited by

345 US 1 - Supreme Court 1953
142 S. Ct. 959 - Supreme Court 2022
597 F. 2d 826 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1979
10 AD 2d 66 - NY: Appellate Div., 1st Dept. 1960
157 F. Supp. 939 - Court of Claims 1958
340 US 462 - Supreme Court 1951
76 F. Supp. 801 - Dist. Court, SD New York 1948
163 F. 2d 133 - Circuit Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1947
M Wilson… - Canadian Journal of Administrative Law & Practice, 2014