Hot answers tagged

8

Short Answer Statements of jurors about their deliberations are not allowed to be considered for any purpose, subject to very narrow limitations which do not apply in the fact pattern you are asking about in this question. The General Rule And Its Exceptions Consideration of juror statements, subject to narrow exceptions, is barred by Federal Rule of ...


7

On an issue of pure law, an appellate court decides if the trial judge got it right or wrong from scratch, and if there is a case that is a better match than the one that the judge used that leads to a different outcome in the case, then an appellate court is likely to find that the trial court's ruling is a reversible error. On an issue of mixed fact and ...


7

This is a Federal court decision There are no state courts involved. This was a ruling by the presiding judge of the original trial There is no appeal involved because the case wasn't final. This is a ruling on a Motion for Judgement of Acquittal Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure spells this out: After the government closes its evidence or ...


5

The alternative is the same whether just one lower court or many lower courts ignore SCOTUS precedent. An aggrieved parts will appeal the lower court ruling, and the matter will work its way up the ladder until SCOTUS directly rules on this application of the law. This sort of happens all the time, when lower courts don't apply the ostensive "final ruling" ...


5

Any precedent can be overturned by any court at the same or higher level in the hierarchy So, for your example of a High Court precedent, it can be overturned at Supreme Court, Court of Appeal or High Court levels. However, the longer a precedent is in place, the less likely it is to be overturned because one of the objectives of the legal system is to ...


5

The Main Answer: The Judge Can't Appeal; But Other People Can Since the Judge now has an attorney, can this Judge appeal to the Supreme Court (or appeal again starting from a different court jurisdiction) to potentially allow him to continue his decision to review if the Michael Flynn case should be dismissed? Not exactly. It is potentially subject to ...


5

The Court of Appeals made Judge Sullivan the respondent. Flynn petitioned the Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus to order the inferior court to dismiss the criminal proceedings against Flynn. Normally the adversary in the 'parent' proceedings would oppose such a petition but in this case the adversary, the Department of Justice, supported Flynn's ...


4

This probably isn't a ground for an appeal. While a party arguing to reverse a trial court's decision must show that the argument that they are making on appeal was "preserved" by that party at trial by making that argument in the trial court, the converse is not true. Indeed, one of the rules of appellate practice is that a trial court's ruling will be ...


4

While an appellate court may have the opportunity to reverse any individual trial judge every few years, I know that trial judges, in their numerous workday rulings, reverse appellate courts every day. Gregory Kellam Scott, “Judge-Made Law: Constitutional Duties and Obligations Under the Separations of Powers Doctrine,” 49 DEPAUL L. REV.517 (1999) (a ...


4

When judges are finder of fact, the standard is one of deference to the trial court, but may be overcome if the trial court made a "clearly erroneous finding". See Concrete v. Const. Laborers, 508 U.S. 602 (1993).


4

Yes it affects them. Judges are pursuing their vocation as a career and there are career paths within the judicial system just as there are in every other career. Screw up too many times and your career ends at your present level. Judges are also professionals and most take professional pride in doing their jobs well. Having a decision overturned is ...


4

Part XVIII of the Criminal Code addresses the power and procedure for appeals. Appeals of indictable offences are appealed to the provincial Court of Appeal. The Crown can generally appeal where there is an error in law. The Crown has a limited appeal on the basis of questions of fact. This includes appeals for unreasonable verdict.1 However, ...


4

Probably not The judge is required to decide the case on the basis of the law the parties argue. If neither party draws the judge’s attention to a relevant case it would not be an error of law for the judge to not consider it. Indeed, it would likely be an error of law (denial of natural justice or breach of procedural fairness) if the judge did consider it ...


4

I guess the meat of your question is: If a city enacts an unconstitutional ordinance, can it evade judicial review by repealing the ordinance and arguing for mootness once the judicial proceeding reaches to a point of potential disadvantage, and reenacting the same or a very similar ordinance once the judicial proceeding is dismissed? I don't know where the ...


4

Different jurisdictions have different laws about arbitration and there can be a distinction between domestic and international arbitration. Notwithstanding, most jurisdictions use the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration as the basis for their domestic law so there is a lot of ...


4

The case was heard by a jury, Sorokin was the presiding judge. He ruled on a defense motion for a judgment of acquittal, which is why the matter was not (yet) heard by an appeal court. The only public explanation at the moment is that After a careful review of the entire record in this case, including the parties’ substantial post-trial briefs, the ...


3

Ohwilleke's answer (i.e. 'there isn't a simple answer') covers the general principles clearly. But for your specific situation (England and Wales, appeal to the High Court Chancery Division or Court of Appeal), the answer is "Do nothing irrevocable if possible; if necessary, apply for interim directions to the Court". The Chancery Masters are used to this ...


3

The decision of a court consists of several things: The orders made A summary of the evidence The judge's reasoning from the evidence to their conclusions of what the facts of the case are The judge's reasoning from the evidence to their conclusions of what the law applying to those facts is The judge's reasoning from those findings of facts and law to the ...


3

Overview Trials and hearings before a judge aren't random, but they aren't terribly predictable either. The best empirical studies of high stakes felony jury trials suggest that the accuracy of a jury in a case that doesn't plea bargain is about 90%. They are right 90% of the time and wrong 10% of the time. The appeal process involving multiple instances ...


3

In the U.S., the answer to this question would be no, it doesn't affect the judge at all, other than as a matter of personal pride. Judges cannot be removed from office or penalized in any way professionally for having their judgment reversed on appeal. Indeed, about 99% of the time, if a decision of a judge is overturned on appeal, on remand, the case is ...


3

Yes It's not uncommon. In fact I am aware of at least one case where the trial judge referred it to appeal before he made his decision on the basis that whichever way he decided the law was so unsettled that grounds for appeal would occur. In that case the court of appeal called up the trial judge to sit on the 3 judge appeal a) because he knew the case and ...


3

There has never been a right to appeal directly, or discretionarily form a state trial court to SCOTUS. But, one can apply for a common law writ in SCOTUS with respect to a state trial court actions under the All Writs Act which is functionally an appeal, even though it is technically an original SCOTUS proceeding. But, original SCOTUS writs are extremely ...


2

Based on the parallel of the English High Court, there may well be no written reasons, if the Judge said something like "This claim, even if I accept everything in the papers, is plainly barred by the relevant Limitation Act. I accordingly dismiss it with costs." That paragraph is 'the judgment', and there will be a recording of it somewhere. You are ...


2

The decision can be appealed to the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund Management Board. Any appeal of the board's decision goes to the National Industrial Court (next page).


2

It's important to understand the distinction here between arguments and evidence. In a trial, there's evidence that comes in the form of witness testimony and physical objects, and then there are arguments about how the law applies to the facts that the evidence reveals. So if the prosecutor brought in a two police officers and photos of your car for the ...


2

An argument is without merit if it is not based on correct ideas about law (sometimes characterized as absurd or frivolous claims). For instance if I were to argue for acquittal of evasion of income tax on the grounds that I have a God-given right to not pay income tax, that would be without merit, and it is completely established that I am compelled to pay ...


2

My vague understanding of appellate law is that a timely notice of appeal compels a judge to make a written answer containing those findings. Is that correct? No. A trial court is generally divested of jurisdiction to take any further action when a notice of appeal is filed. The general rule is that a trial court ruling may be upheld for any reason ...


2

Rules of court procedure are specific to the individual court system. An appeal normally involves filing paperwork with the appeals court and the court you're appealing from, and serving some form of notice on the other side. An appeal normally has to come at the end of the lower court proceedings. This is for practical reasons: it's time-consuming to ...


2

Sometimes dissents are issued to call attention to a bad decision in the hope that a higher court or the legislature will address the problem. Sometimes dissents are issued to clarify what the dissenting judge understands to be the scope of the decision (sometimes arguing that it is narrow, other times arguing that it is broad). Sometimes dissents are ...


2

If the state supreme court is not interested in hearing a case on appeal, it's probably not going to issue an extraordinary writ forcing itself to accept the case. I don't imagine a federal court would do so either, since the state court has the inherent authority to manage its docket, set rules of practice and procedure, etc. That probably leaves you with ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible