Legal tests

Legal tests are various kinds of commonly applied methods of evaluation used to resolve matters of jurisprudence.[1] In the context of a trial, a hearing, discovery, or other kinds of legal proceedings, the resolution of certain questions of fact or law may hinge on the application of one or more legal tests.

Legal tests are often formulated from the logical analysis of a judicial decision or a court order where it appears that a finder of fact or the court made a particular decision after contemplating a well-defined set of circumstances. It is assumed that evaluating any given set of circumstances under a legal test will lead to an unambiguous and repeatable result.

Kinds of legal tests

• Bright-line rule
• Balancing test

International law

• Berne three-step test
• Habitual residence test
• Caroline test

Common law

• "But-for" test

Canada

• Andrews test
• Air of reality test (see also R v Fontaine)
• Assumed Jurisdiction test
• Central management and control test
• Collins Test
• Community Standards of Tolerance test
• Conway Test
• Degradation or Dehumanization Test
• Denial of Bail test
• Gladue Test
• Grant Test (see also R v Suberu)
• Indecent conduct test (see also R v Kouri)
• Integral to Distinctive Culture test
• Interjurisdictional immunity
• Internal Necessities Test or Artistic Defense
• Meiorin test
• Law test
• Multiple Access test
• Necessarily incidental doctrine
• Oakes test
• Overbreadth test
• Patent unreasonableness test
• Pith and substance test (see also R v Morgentaler)
• Provincial Inability test
• Purpose and form test
• Real and Substantial Connection test
• Reasonableness Standard
• Sheppard Test
• Smithers test
• Sparrow test
• Test for Aboriginal Title
• Test for bias
• Test for confusion
• Test for detention
• Test for exclusion of evidence
• Test for the inclusion of hearsay evidence
• Test for materiality
• Test for material causation/contribution
• Test for new principle of fundamental justice
• Test for Infringement of Title
• Test for inducement or contributory patent infringement
• Tests for paramountcy – Express contradiction test & Frustrate the purpose test
• Test for patent infringement
• Test for peace, order, and good government (see also R v Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd)
• Void for Vagueness test
• Waterfield Test
• Wigmore Test

United Kingdom

• Bolam test
• Hicklin test
• Wednesbury unreasonableness test

United States

• Aguilar-Spinelli test
• Calculus of negligence test (Hand rule)
• Consumer expectations test
• Daubert standard
• Frye test
• Imminent lawless action
• Lemon test
• Miller test
• Mt. Healthy test
• Risk-utility test
• SLAPS test (an element of the Miller test)
• Reasonable expectation of privacy
• Clear and present danger
• Bad tendency
• Shocks the conscience test
• Wambaugh's inversion test. see: Obiter dictum.
• Sherbert test. see: Sherbert v. Verner
• McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework

Notes and references

1. Cane, Peter (2002). Responsibility in Law and Morality. Hart Publishing. ISBN 1-84113-321-3.