Statements (72)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:legal_case
|
| gptkbp:appeals_to |
The case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
Often studied in law schools.
Still relevant in contemporary legal discussions. Frequently discussed in legal forums. Set standards for future cases. Influenced public perception of the legal system. Analyzed by legal scholars. Analyzed for its impact on legal standards. Analyzed for its judicial reasoning. Implications for the justice system. Relevant to ongoing legal debates. Subject of numerous legal analyses. Continues to be relevant in legal education. Impacted the rights of defendants. Impacted the treatment of evidence in court. Influenced the development of legal principles. Often referenced in legal literature. Part of Canadian case law. Relevant to discussions on legal ethics. Relevant to discussions on wrongful convictions. |
| gptkbp:case_number |
Part of Canadian legal history.
1992 SCC 30. A key case in Canadian criminal law. Details of the case are frequently cited. Involved allegations of sexual assault. |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
Resulted in a landmark ruling.
Resulted in a landmark decision. Ruling favored the defendant. Contributed to legal reforms. Contributed to the evolution of criminal law. Led to a significant legal ruling. Led to changes in evidence law. Resulted in a retrial. Significant impact on legal practices. |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Considered a landmark case in Canada.
Considered a turning point in legal standards. Highlighted the importance of fair trial rights. Significant for its impact on justice. |
| gptkbp:case_types |
Criminal law case.
|
| gptkbp:consequences |
Impacted future criminal cases.
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_Canada
Jean Morin. |
| gptkbp:decided_by |
The Supreme Court ruled on the admissibility of evidence.
|
| gptkbp:doctrine |
Doctrine of necessity.
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
R v Morin
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Influenced Canadian criminal law.
|
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
[1992] 1 S. C. R. 771.
|
| gptkbp:judges |
Justice John Sopinka
|
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
Reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Involved complex judicial reasoning. Majority opinion written by Justice Sopinka. |
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
Canada.
|
| gptkbp:legal_context |
Set in the context of Canadian law.
|
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
Part of the Canadian legal framework.
|
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
Admissibility of evidence.
Crown Attorney. |
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
Reversal of lower court's decision.
|
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
The case established guidelines for the use of expert testimony.
|
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
Analyzed for its implications on justice.
Defendant was represented by a criminal lawyer. |
| gptkbp:legislation |
Right to a fair trial.
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
The conviction was overturned.
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
Established important legal precedent.
Set a precedent for future cases involving evidence. |
| gptkbp:related_cases |
R v. Stinchcombe
|
| gptkbp:significance |
Significant for legal practitioners.
It addressed issues of wrongful conviction. |
| gptkbp:was_a_demonstration_of |
Expert testimony.
|
| gptkbp:year |
gptkb:1992
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Guy_Paul_Morin
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
7
|