Elkhart v. Sabbagh
From MicrasWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
| Elkhart v. Sabbagh | |
|---|---|
| Municipality of Elkhart v. Michel A. Sabbagh | |
| Case details | |
| Court | High Court of Aerla |
| Case number | No. 6 of 1742 AN |
| Citation | 133 A.L.R. 067
|
| Decided | 1.II.1742 AN |
| Parties | |
| Petitioner | Municipality of Elkhart |
| Respondent | Michel Sabbagh |
| Petitioner's counsel | Christopher Bradfield, Municipal Attorney General |
| Respondent's counsel | Fredrick Anderson, Office of Legal Counsel |
| Holding | |
| There is no basis that exists in the Constitution of Aerla that allows the President to amend or repeal an Act of the National Assembly. | |
| Court membership | |
| Majority opinion | Cheif Justice Peter Garfield |
| Joined by | Louis Booth, Austin Sutton |
| Concurrence | Issac Karr |
| Dissent | Nathan Kempfield |
| Laws and precedents | |
| Laws cited | Chapters III and IV of the Aerlan Constitution |
| Classification | |
| Areas of law | Constitutional law |
| Keywords | Separation of Powers, Presidential Powers, Legislative Powers |
Elkhart v. Sabbagh, 133 A.L.R. 067 (1742 AN), is a landmark decision of the High Court of Aerla which ruled that the President cannot amend or repeal acts of the National Assembly.
