About: R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- Rule:
- Inverse Functional Properties:
- "Same As":

About: R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase, within Data Space : dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon

http://dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FR_v_Burgess%3B_Ex_parte_Henry&invfp=IFP_OFF&sas=SAME_AS_OFF

R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry, is a High Court of Australia case where the majority took a broad view of the external affairs power in the Constitution but held that the interstate trade and commerce power delineated trade and commerce within a state, rejecting an argument that the power extended to activities that were commingled with interstate activities. The court set aside a conviction for breach of the regulations as they went further than was necessary to carry out and give effect to the convention.

Attributes	Values
rdf:type	yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:Case107308889 yago:Event100029378 yago:Happening107283608 yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity Supreme Court of the United States case
rdfs:label	R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry (en)
rdfs:comment	R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry, is a High Court of Australia case where the majority took a broad view of the external affairs power in the Constitution but held that the interstate trade and commerce power delineated trade and commerce within a state, rejecting an argument that the power extended to activities that were commingled with interstate activities. The court set aside a conviction for breach of the regulations as they went further than was necessary to carry out and give effect to the convention. (en)
name	R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry (en)
foaf:depiction
dcterms:subject	Australian constitutional law Aviation in Australia External affairs power in the Australian Constitution cases Trade and commerce power in the Australian Constitution cases 1936 in Australian law High Court of Australia cases 1936 in case law
Wikipage page ID	4580493 (xsd:integer)
Wikipage revision ID	1100114370 (xsd:integer)
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage	Australian constitutional law Aviation in Australia Constitution of Australia Chief Justice of Australia Edward McTiernan George Winterton External affairs power in the Australian Constitution cases Australian constitutional law Hayden Starke Trade and commerce power in the Australian Constitution cases Owen Dixon High Court of Australia 1936 in Australian law High Court of Australia cases Sydney Airport Sydney Harbour Bridge 1936 in case law H.V. Evatt Australian referendum, 1937 (Aviation) Section 51(i) of the Constitution of Australia Section 122 of the Constitution of Australia Section 51(xxix) of the Constitution of Australia Paris Convention of 1919 Justices John Latham (Australian jurist) Section 51(i) of the Australian Constitution Section 51(xxix) of the Australian Constitution
Link from a Wikipage to an external page	http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1936/52.pdf http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1939/19.pdf
sameAs	R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate	dbt:Abbr dbt:Reflist dbt:Sfn dbt:Short_description dbt:Use_Australian_English dbt:Use_dmy_dates dbt:Cite_AustLII dbt:Infobox_court_case
thumbnail	wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/Coat_of_Arms_of_Australia.svg?width=300
court	High Court of Australia
full name	The King v Burgess; Ex parte Henry (en)
judges	Chief Justice of Australia Edward McTiernan Hayden Starke Owen Dixon H.V. Evatt Justices John Latham (Australian jurist)
has abstract	R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry, is a High Court of Australia case where the majority took a broad view of the external affairs power in the Constitution but held that the interstate trade and commerce power delineated trade and commerce within a state, rejecting an argument that the power extended to activities that were commingled with interstate activities. The court set aside a conviction for breach of the regulations as they went further than was necessary to carry out and give effect to the convention. (en)
date decided	1936-11-10 (xsd:date)
opinions	(en) The implementation of an international treaty is valid where the treaty is bona fide and the subject matter is of international concern. (en) The Commonwealth government's power to regulate interstate trade and commerce does not extend to intrastate trade and commerce. (en) The regulations were invalid because they did not carry out and give effect to the convention. (en)
related actions	http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1939/19.pdf (en) R v Poole; Ex parte Henry (en)
gold:hypernym	Case
prov:wasDerivedFrom	wikipedia-en:R_v_Burgess;_Ex_parte_Henry?oldid=1100114370&ns=0
page length (characters) of wiki page	11072 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf	wikipedia-en:R_v_Burgess;_Ex_parte_Henry
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of	1936 in Australia 1937 Australian referendum (Aviation) List of High Court of Australia cases High Court of Australia Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen Ex parte
is foaf:primaryTopic of	wikipedia-en:R_v_Burgess;_Ex_parte_Henry

Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024

Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3330 as of Mar 19 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 60 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software