Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
An attorney may also raise an objection against a judge's ruling, to preserve the right to appeal that ruling. Under certain circumstances, a court may need to hold some kind of pretrial hearing and make evidentiary rulings to resolve important issues like personal jurisdiction, or whether to impose sanctions for extreme misconduct by parties or counsel.
Because the need for minimum contacts is a matter of personal jurisdiction (the power of the court to hear the claim with respect to a particular party) instead of subject matter jurisdiction (the power of the court to hear this kind of claim at all), a party can explicitly or implicitly waive their right to object to the court hearing the case.
In 2004, in Crawford v.Washington, the Supreme Court of the United States significantly redefined the application of the Sixth Amendment's right to confrontation. In Crawford, the Supreme Court changed the inquiry from whether the evidence offered had an "indicia of reliability" to whether the evidence is testimonial hearsay. [3]
The Supreme Court of Virginia has stated that '"This Court has repeatedly held that the effect of an appeal to circuit court is to "annul the judgment of the inferior tribunal as completely as if there had been no previous trial."' [14] The only exception to this is that if a defendant appeals a conviction for a crime having multiple levels of ...
A demurrer is commonly filed by a defendant in response to a complaint filed by the plaintiff.A demurrer to a complaint can terminate a lawsuit. Although a plaintiff may demur to a defendant's answer to a complaint or the defendant's affirmative defenses, a demurrer to an answer is less common because it may be a poor strategic move.
OAKLAND, Calif. (Reuters) -A federal judge said on Tuesday that parts of Elon Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI to halt its conversion to a for-profit entity might go to trial, adding that the Tesla ...
The Supreme Court sidestepped a new dispute over race in education by declining to consider whether an admissions program for public high schools in Boston unlawfully considered race.
The federal court has the discretion to accept the case as a whole or remand the issues of state law, however the court must apply state substantive law to state law claims, as opposed to federal law—a practice which is in-line to actions brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983.