Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Courts have ruled that judicial notice must be taken of federal public laws and treaties, state public laws, and official regulations of both federal and local government agencies. A trial court's decision to take judicial notice or not to do so is reviewed on appeal under the standard of abuse of discretion. [5]
Discretionary jurisdiction is a power that allows a court to engage in discretionary review. This power gives a court the authority to decide whether to hear a particular case brought before it. Typically, courts of last resort and intermediate courts in a state or country will have discretionary jurisdiction. [1]
Judicial discretion is the power of the judiciary to make some legal decisions according to their discretion. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the ability of judges to exercise discretion is an aspect of judicial independence. Where appropriate, judicial discretion allows a judge to decide a legal case or matter within a range of ...
Discretionary review forces parties to always concentrate their resources on persuading the trial court to get it right the first time around (rather than assuming an appellate court will "fix it later"), thus increasing the overall efficiency of the judicial system. Of course, it also leaves them at the mercy of the discretion of the trial court.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Judicial Conference on Friday issued guidance on the federal judiciary's new policy making it more difficult to "judge-shop" following public criticism from top Republicans ...
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.
Since the Judiciary Act of 1925 ("The Certiorari Act" in some texts), the majority of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction has been discretionary. [4] Each year, the court receives approximately 9,000–10,000 petitions for certiorari , of which about 1% (approximately 80–100), are granted plenary review with oral arguments, and an additional 50 ...
The Supreme Court of the United States delineated the test for the availability of interlocutory appeals, called the collateral order doctrine, for United States federal courts in the case of Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser, [2] holding that under the relevant statute (28 U.S.C. § 1291) such an appeal would be permitted only if: