Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The modes of persuasion, modes of appeal or rhetorical appeals (Greek: pisteis) are strategies of rhetoric that classify a speaker's or writer's appeal to their audience. These include ethos , pathos , and logos , all three of which appear in Aristotle's Rhetoric . [ 1 ]
The specific rules of the legal system will dictate exactly how the appeal is officially begun. For example, the appellant might have to file the notice of appeal with the appellate court, or with the court from which the appeal is taken, or both. Some courts have samples of a notice of appeal on the court's own web site.
An exception exists when this situation arises in one of the now-rare cases brought directly to the Supreme Court on appeal from a United States District Court; in this situation, the case is referred to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the corresponding circuit for a final decision there by either the Court of Appeals sitting en banc, or a panel ...
For cases brought to the Supreme Court by direct appeal from a United States District Court, the chief justice may order the case remanded to the appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals for a final decision there. [220] This has only occurred once in U.S. history, in the case of United States v. Alcoa (1945). [221]
That is, one of the parties in the case could appeal a decision of a court of appeals to the Supreme Court, and it had to accept the case. The right of automatic appeal for most types of decisions of a court of appeals was ended by an Act of Congress, the Judiciary Act of 1925, which also reorganized many other things in the federal court system.
The rhetorical presidency is a political communication theory that describes the communication and government style of U.S. presidents in the twentieth century. This theory describes the transition from a presidency that directed rhetoric toward the United States Congress and other government bodies, to one that addresses rhetoric, policy and ideas directly to the public.
A US appeals court on Thursday ruled the Federal Communications Commission did not have the legal authority to reinstate landmark net neutrality rules.. The decision is a blow to the outgoing ...
The government speech doctrine establishes that the government may advance its speech without requiring viewpoint neutrality when the government itself is the speaker. Thus, when the state is the speaker, it may make content based choices. The simple principle has broad implications, and has led to contentious disputes within the Supreme Court. [1]