Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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."
The Judicial Council's staff is responsible for implementing council policies. [15] In addition, every court may make local rules for its own government and the government of its officers. [16] Court business is conducted using the California Court Case Management System [17] and other local court implementations.
Judicial opinions often use the citation from all three sources (the United States Reports, Supreme Court Reporter, and Lawyers' Edition), as seen here: Martin v. Texas, 200 U.S. 316, 26 S. Ct. 338, 50 L. Ed. 497 (1906). Since the 1930s, prior to publication of the decisions in these reporters, they are available from the United States Law Week ...
A series of rulings announced by the UMC Judicial Council for its fall docket of cases is the latest major development in an eventful year for the nation’s largest mainline Protestant denomination.
This is a list of major cases decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. These include appeals from the following countries: [1] Canada (criminal until 1933; Civil case until 1949) Malaysia (until 1985) Australia (until 1986) Singapore (until 1994) Hong Kong (until 1997) New Zealand (until 2003) Most Caribbean countries
Upon receipt of such a report, the judicial council of the circuit involved may conduct any additional investigation it deems necessary, and it may dismiss the complaint. [5] If a judge who is the subject of a complaint holds his or her office during good behavior, action taken by the judicial council may include certifying disability of the judge.
[5] [6] Among their responsibilities is judicial discipline, the formulation of circuit policy, the implementation of policy directives received from the Judicial Conference, and the annual submission of a report to the Administrative Office on the number and nature of orders entered during the year that relate to judicial misconduct.
The modern practice of the committee questioning nominees on their judicial views began with John Marshall Harlan II in 1955; the nomination came shortly after the Supreme Court handed down its landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, and several southern senators threatened to block Harlan's confirmation, hence the decision to testify.