Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In law, a judgment is a decision of a court regarding the rights and liabilities of parties in a legal action or proceeding. [1] [2] Judgments also generally provide the court's explanation of why it has chosen to make a particular court order.
Judgement (or judgment) [1] is the evaluation of given circumstances to make a decision. [2] Judgement is also the ability to make considered decisions. The term has at least five distinct uses. In an informal context, a judgement is opinion expressed as fact. Formally, a judgement is the act of evaluating the validity or correctness of a ...
A declaratory judgment, also called a declaration, is the legal determination of a court that resolves legal uncertainty for the litigants. It is a form of legally binding preventive by which a party involved in an actual or possible legal matter can ask a court to conclusively rule on and affirm the rights, duties, or obligations of one or ...
Judgment on the pleadings is a motion made after pleading and before discovery; summary judgment happens after discovery and before trial; JMOL occurs during trial. [5] In United States federal courts, JMOL is a creation of Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that established the principle of judicial review, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes they find to violate the Constitution of the United States.
Regardless of the type of summary judgment motion, there is a standardized rule(-like) framework for evaluating the first clause of Rule 56(a) ("no disputed genuine issue of material fact"), formulated as the following six core summary judgment tenets of review (SJTOR) (where the emphasized must indicate the lack of judicial discretion permitted):
A simple concurring opinion arises when a judge joins the decision of the court but has something to add. Concurring in judgment means that the judge agrees with the majority decision (the case's ultimate outcome in terms of who wins and who loses) but not with the reasoning of the majority opinion (why one side wins and the other loses).
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that set forth the legal test used when U.S. federal courts must defer to a government agency's interpretation of a law or statute. [1] The decision articulated a doctrine known as "Chevron deference". [2]