functus officio造句

• This concern for finality is evident in the definition of functus officio:
• With regard to " functus officio ", the Court ruled that this common law principle cannot invalidate section 24, although it is an important consideration.
• The obligation of the provincial government to report to Justice LeBlanc was disputed, as it was considered a violation of " functus officio ", in which a judge makes a ruling and afterwards has no authority.
• The Court ultimately concluded " functus officio " was not violated because the reports did not " alter a final judgment . " While LeBlanc could see reports, he could not change his decision to further define section 23.
• ""'Functus officio " "', an officer or agency whose mandate has expired either because of the arrival of an expiry date or because an agency has accomplished the purpose for which it was created.
• When used in relation to a court, it may also mean whose duty or authority has come to an end . " Once a court has passed a valid sentence after a lawful hearing, it is functus officio and cannot reopen the case ."
• With the Magistrates'Courts, there is no functus officio : a magistrate can reopen his own case within 14 days . This led to other people criticising the magistrate's decision to reopen, saying it gives the impression of popular and executive interference in the judiciary.
• In earlier cases the view had been taken that in the interests of finality, after delivering its judgment in an appeal the Court should be regarded as " functus officio ", that is, it has fully " performed its office " and no longer has any legal power to act.
• The section 24 ( 1 ) phrase limiting remedies, requiring that they be " appropriate and just in the circumstances ", was defined partly as giving the courts themselves the right to determine what was appropriate and just, although judges should be aware of doctrines such as " functus officio ."
• An example of an imaginative remedy can be found in the landmark case " Supreme Court minority's objections that this use of section 24 violated " fundamental justice " and the " " functus officio " " rule, in which a judge makes a ruling and afterwards has no role to play, the majority upheld the earlier decision.
• In either aspect the rights of the parties could have been determined by proceedings on behalf of the company or its grantees against the patentees of the state or their grantees; but instead of instituting such proceedings the railroad company besieged the principal officers of the land department to ignore the action of their predecessors in office, and to exercise a power that had become functus officio.
• The " appropriate and just " limit was defined in this case as giving the courts themselves the right to determine what is appropriate and just ( although they should keep in mind traditional common law limits on judicial power; in this case it was denied that " functus officio " was violated ), and also as requiring courts to remember that section 24 is itself a part of the constitution and allows judges to carry out their function of enforcing rights.