Rule in Wild's Case
Okay kiddo, here's the scoop!
In Wild's case, there is something called a "rule". This rule is like a decision that has been made in the past that now helps guide the decision-making process in similar situations.
When there are questions or problems that come up in the legal world, judges will look to previous cases and rules to help them make their decisions.
So, in Wild's case, the judge looked at similar cases and rules that had been made before to help them decide what to do. This helps make sure that the decision is fair and consistent.
For example, if a rule has been made that says "people should always stop at a red light", then if someone breaks that rule, the judge will use that rule to determine if that person did something wrong.
So, the "rule" in Wild's case is just a helpful guide that the judge used to make a fair and consistent decision. Does that make sense?
In Wild's case, there is something called a "rule". This rule is like a decision that has been made in the past that now helps guide the decision-making process in similar situations.
When there are questions or problems that come up in the legal world, judges will look to previous cases and rules to help them make their decisions.
So, in Wild's case, the judge looked at similar cases and rules that had been made before to help them decide what to do. This helps make sure that the decision is fair and consistent.
For example, if a rule has been made that says "people should always stop at a red light", then if someone breaks that rule, the judge will use that rule to determine if that person did something wrong.
So, the "rule" in Wild's case is just a helpful guide that the judge used to make a fair and consistent decision. Does that make sense?