Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the knowing use of false testimony by a prosecutor in a criminal case violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if the testimony affects only the credibility of the witness and does not directly relate to the innocence or guilt of ...
A "motion for nolle prosequi" ("not prosecuting") is a motion by a prosecutor or other plaintiff to drop legal charges. n. n. Latin for "we do not wish to prosecute," which is a declaration made to the judge by a prosecutor in a criminal case (or by a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit) either before or during trial, meaning the case against the ...
The holding is a court's determination of a matter of law based on the issue presented in the particular case.In other words: under this law, with these facts, this result. It is the same as a 'decision' made by the judge; however "decision" can also refer to the judge's entire opinion, containing, for example, a discussion of facts, issues, and law as well as the holding.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court.Written by Associate Justice William Rehnquist, the decision of the Court held that a party moving for summary judgment need show only that the opposing party lacks evidence sufficient to support its case.
Louisiana, the state of Louisiana moved for a jury trial, but the Court denied the motion, ruling that the suit was an equity action and not an action at law, and that therefore the Seventh Amendment guarantee of a jury trial did not apply. If a matter involving an action at law did come before the court, however, a jury would likely be ...
In Federalist No. 33, Alexander Hamilton writes about the Supremacy Clause that federal laws by definition must be supreme. If the laws do not function from that position, then they amount to nothing, noting that "A law, by the very meaning of the term, includes supremacy. It is a rule which those to whom it is prescribed are bound to observe.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution of the United States, the prosecution must turn over to a criminal defendant any significant evidence in its possession that suggests the defendant is not guilty (exculpatory evidence).
In the United States courts, a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) is a motion made by a party, during trial, claiming the opposing party has insufficient evidence to reasonably support its case. [1] It asserts that the evidence allows only one result: victory for the moving party, even if a jury has found otherwise. [2]