Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A closing argument, summation, or summing up is the concluding statement of each party's counsel reiterating the important arguments for the trier of fact, often the jury, in a court case. A closing argument occurs after the presentation of evidence. A closing argument may not contain any new information and may only use evidence introduced at ...
The Judicial Council of California has also promulgated the California Rules of Court, which includes such publications as the Standards of Judicial Administration and the Ethics Standards for Neutral Arbitrators in Contractual Arbitrations, under the authority of article VI, section 6, of the Constitution of California.
The author, Paul Mason (1898–1985), was a scholar who worked for the California State Senate. He is best known for writing Constitutional History of California in 1951 and Manual of Legislative Procedure in 1935. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) was assigned copyright ownership by Mason prior to his death.
Summary judgment in the United States applies only in civil cases. It does not apply to criminal cases to obtain a pretrial judgment of conviction or acquittal, in part because a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to a jury trial. [4] Some federal and state-court judges publish general guidelines and sample summary judgment forms.
The Judicial Council of California is the rule-making arm of the California court system. [1] In accordance with the California Constitution and under the leadership of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of California, the council is responsible for "ensuring the consistent, independent, impartial, and accessible administration of justice."
ATRF’s annual “judicial hellholes” report highlights the nation’s ten-worst legal jurisdictions when it comes to liability cases, such as “allowing innovative lawsuits to proceed ...
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Legal formalism is both a descriptive and normative theory of how judges should decide cases. [1] In its descriptive sense, formalists maintain that judges reach their decisions by applying uncontroversial principles to the facts; formalists believe that there is an underlying logic to the many legal principles that may be applied in different cases.