Also known as: expels · expelled · expelling · expulsion · deport
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
3 senses
A privilege allowing a possessor of land or chattels to use reasonable force to remove an intruder. The privilege exists only when the actor reasonably believes the intruder poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to the actor or a protected third person.
A privilege allowing a possessor of land or chattels to use reasonable force to remove an intruder. The privilege exists only when the actor reasonably believes the intruder poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to the actor or a protected third person.
The removal of a partner or member from a partnership or limited liability company, resulting in dissociation. Expulsion may occur by agreement, judicial order, or operation of law when an entity partner willfully dissolves or terminates.
The power of each house of Congress to remove one of its members by a two-thirds vote.
The removal of a partner or member from a partnership or limited liability company, resulting in dissociation. Expulsion may occur by agreement, judicial order, or operation of law when an entity partner willfully dissolves or terminates.
The power of each house of Congress to remove one of its members by a two-thirds vote.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Ewan Eckhart discovers an armed stranger breaking into his garage at night. After yelling for the intruder to leave, Ewan reasonably believes the man will attack him or his family. Ewan uses force to drive the intruder out. The force is privileged because Ewan reasonably feared serious harm and first requested the intruder to desist.
1 common questions
A landowner may use reasonable force to expel an intruder only when the landowner reasonably believes the intruder will cause death or serious bodily harm unless removed. The landowner must first request the intruder to leave unless a request would be futile or dangerous.
Supporting sources
Equinox Energy, a corporate general partner in a limited partnership, holds a board vote to dissolve itself. The dissolution causes Equinox to be expelled from the partnership under the statute. The remaining partners may recover damages caused by the wrongful dissociation.
Ezra Eastman and two other partners sign an agreement allowing expulsion of any partner by unanimous consent. When Ezra repeatedly misses meetings and harms the business, the other partners vote to expel him. Ezra's dissociation is effective immediately under the agreement term.
Elliot Edmonds, a partner in a term partnership, engages in fraud against the business. The other partners obtain a judicial order expelling him under the statute. The order terminates Elliot's partnership interest and subjects him to liability for resulting damages.
Elite Dynamics, a corporate partner, votes to dissolve itself before the partnership term ends. The dissolution expels Elite from the partnership by operation of law. Elite remains liable for damages the partnership suffers from the loss of its participation.
2 common questions
Dissociation by expulsion is wrongful when it breaches an express provision of the partnership agreement, occurs before the end of a definite term without a statutory exception, or results from a corporate partner's willful dissolution.
Supporting sources
No. Expulsion may occur by agreement of the partners, by judicial order, or automatically when a corporate partner willfully dissolves. Only certain grounds require a court order.
Supporting sources
A member of the House is convicted of bribery. The House conducts proceedings and obtains a two-thirds vote to expel the member. The expulsion removes the member from office without judicial review of the chamber's internal decision.
In 1966 Jagdish Rai Chadha, an East Indian born in Kenya who held a British passport, was lawfully admitted to the United States on a nonimmigrant student visa that expired on June 30, 1972. In October 1973, the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service informed Chadha that he had remained longer than permitted and was therefore deportable. Chadha conceded deportability but applied for suspension under section 244(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. On June 25, 1974, an Immigration Judge acting on behalf of the Attorney General suspended Chadha's deportation and adjusted his status to permanent resident after finding that he satisfied the statutory criteria of seven years' continuous presence, good moral character, and extreme hardship. A report of the suspension was transmitted to Congress as required by the Act. On December 16, 1975, the House of Representatives passed a resolution disapproving the suspension for Chadha and five other aliens on the ground that they did not meet the statutory requirements, particularly as to hardship. Pursuant to the House resolution, the Immigration Judge reopened the deportation proceedings. Chadha moved to terminate them on constitutional grounds, but the Immigration Judge ruled that he lacked authority to declare the resolution unconstitutional and ordered Chadha deported. Chadha appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which likewise held that it had no authority to pass on the constitutionality of the resolution and dismissed the appeal. Chadha then filed a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Immigration and Naturalization Service appeared and urged the court to hold the House resolution unconstitutional. After inviting briefs from the Senate and House as amici curiae, the Court of Appeals held the resolution unconstitutional because it was a legislative act that failed to satisfy the requirements of Article I, sections 1 and 7, and set aside the deportation order. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the consolidated cases to address the constitutional question.
View case1 common questions
Each house may expel a member only with the concurrence of two thirds of its members. The decision rests entirely with the chamber and is not subject to judicial review on the merits.
Supporting sources
…7, 1964. : A copy of the advertisement is printed in the Appendix. : Respondent did not consider the charge of expelling the students to be applicable to him, since "that responsibility rests with the State Department of Education." : Approximately 394 copies of the edition of the Times containing…