Doctrine used in a sentence

Doctrine in a sentence as a noun

_King Should that doctrine apply here? Is it a good doctrine in the digital era?

This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.

The doctrine about "do it on a computer" patents will be formed by three judge panels chosen randomly from that appeals court, not by the districts. But the very good sign from these cases is most were decided on the pleadings.

So, if Amazon is going to have to collect sales taxes under the existing "physical presence" doctrine, it may as well try to expand online sales taxes to whack its smaller competitors who don't have a 50-state network of giant warehouses. Sigh!

There is a long-established doctrine of first-sale in the US, and it's not just part of case law, it's part of the culture. The non-resaleability of Kindle books or anything else digital is still new to the popular mind, and carries with it a certain implicit devaluation.

Bowman says that the planting of 2G seeds is permitted under the doctrine of "patent exhaustion." According to that doctrine, if a patented physical object is sold under proper license, then a patent lawsuit involving that same physical object is not permitted, even if the object is sold to someone else.

The search incident to lawful arrest doctrine is rooted in officer safety. Specifically, the Court says officers should have the ability to look for guns and contraband when someone is pulled over and it's likely they are armed or their immediate person or vicinity poses a threat and/or has evidence of a crime.

: "Of the maxims of orthodox finance none, surely, is more anti-social than the fetish of liquidity, the doctrine that it is a positive virtue on the part of investment institutions to concentrate their resources upon the holding of 'liquid' securities. It forgets that there is no such thing as liquidity of investment for the community as a whole.

That is not to say that particular religious beliefs can not be harmful, but there are plenty of religions and in most of them hatred is not part of the doctrine or ritual unless abuse is made by people in power who would otherwise use any other set of outlooks for the same purpose. There are in fact religions that do not involve "imaginary friends" and interfere little with modern scientific outlook.

Therefore, it sought to justify its ability to do so under the doctrine of so-called 'ancillary jurisdiction,' meaning that it had an implied power to do so in aid of its expressly granted powers. Unfortunately, a definitive federal appeals court ruling held that no such ancillary jurisdiction existed, leaving the matter for Congress to decide.

California does not recognize the "inevitable disclosure" doctrine by which a former employee can be enjoined from taking a position on grounds that it will be "inevitable" that he would need to disclose important trade secrets in order to perform his duties. That said, any such case involves highly problematic issues and it would not take much evidence for a court to look at the whole picture and say, "what the **** is going on here."

I also really like this passage later on: "These cases require us to decide how the search incident to arrest doctrine applies to modern cell phones, which are\nnow such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that \nthe proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were\nan important feature of human anatomy."

The reason it's popular is that it plays to some deep eschatological anxieties shared by many people -- and it strikes resonant echoes with Christian millennialism, making it an easy memetic poisoned chalice for anyone who has consciously rejected knee-jerk Christian doctrine but not actually re-evaluated all their composite assumptions and beliefs to drink from.