Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Criminal cases are usually brought by the prosecution, not a plaintiff. The prosecution may bring the case formally in the name of the monarch, state or government. In many Commonwealth realms, this is the king (or queen, when the monarch is female), named the Crown, abbreviated R, thus R v Defendant (orally, R against (versus) Defendant).
Pro se legal representation (/ ˌ p r oʊ ˈ s iː / or / ˌ p r oʊ ˈ s eɪ /) means to argue on one's own behalf in a legal proceeding, as a defendant or plaintiff in civil cases, or a defendant in criminal cases, rather than have representation from counsel or an attorney. The term pro se comes from Latin pro se, meaning "for oneself" or ...
Rule 14(a)(3): The original plaintiff may now assert claims against the third-party defendant, as long as they arise out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of his claim against the third-party plaintiff. The third-party defendant must then assert any defense under Rule 12 and any counterclaim under Rule 13(a), and may ...
A foreign state (i.e., country) is the plaintiff, and the defendants are citizens of one or more U.S. states; or; Under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, a class action can usually be brought in a federal court when there is just minimal diversity, such that any plaintiff is a citizen of a different state from any defendant. Class actions ...
Cuffed defendant before criminal court (Transportation Security Administration image) In court proceedings, a defendant is a person or object who is the party either accused of committing a crime in criminal prosecution or against whom some type of civil relief is being sought in a civil case. Terminology varies from one jurisdiction to another.
In this case, the petitioner, often called a plaintiff, will submit a plea to a court to resolve the dispute. The person against whom the action is taken is known as a respondent . [ 2 ]
A plaintiff can initiate a case by giving the defendant "a short and plain statement" of facts that constitute an alleged wrong. [85] This reform moved the attention of courts from technical scrutiny of words to a more rational consideration of the facts, and opened access to justice far more broadly.
Article III of the United States Constitution permits federal courts to hear such cases, so long as the United States Congress passes a statute to that effect. However, when Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the newly created federal courts to hear such cases, it initially chose not to allow the lower federal courts to possess federal question jurisdiction for fear ...