Can opposing certiorari in ussupreme court re-write the petioner question?
When you boil a certiorari down, it comes down to a writ. Or a degree of law in common terms. I have dusted off my lexicon as well as used search engines to scour for not only the meaning of your words but for the US Supreme Court Rules of Procedure. You might have your legal terms mixed up a little bit or not phrased properly.
"postponing jurisdiction, or granting a petition for a writ of certiorari." From the Oct 2013 Guide for Counsel for the US Supreme Court. Which is the active version the last time I checked. But I heard there is going to be a new version 1 July 2014. Just a footnote, I am NO lawyer.
"postponing jurisdiction, or granting a petition for a writ of certiorari." From the Oct 2013 Guide for Counsel for the US Supreme Court. Which is the active version the last time I checked. But I heard there is going to be a new version 1 July 2014. Just a footnote, I am NO lawyer.
1 person found this useful
A writ of certiorari (Latin: "to be informed") is an order from anappellate court to a lower court to send the records for aspecified case under review. A writ of certiorari orders a lower court to deliver its recordsin a case so that the higher court may review it. When the US Supreme Court iss…ues a writ of certiorari, it meansthey have granted a party's petition for writ of certiorari (request) to consider a case under the Court's appellatejurisdiction. In reality, issuance of a formal writ of certiorari isobsolete. Today, the US Supreme Court Clerk of Court typicallyrequests case files from the lower courts using routineadministrative processes, rather than serving a court order. Thejustices initiate this process when they agree to grant certiorari to a case. For more information, see Related Questions, below. (MORE)
A writ of certiorari is an order that a higher court issues to a lower court in order to review the decision and proceedings of the lower court and determine whether there were any irregularities.
5 C's of Credit refer to the factors that lenders of money evaluate to determine credit worthiness of a borrower. They are the following:. 1. Borrower's CHARACTER. 2. Borrower's CAPACITY to repay the loan. 3. COLLATERAL or security/guarantee for the obligation. 4. Borrower's CAPITAL (business ne…tworth) or downpayment for the loan. 5. Present and anticipated CONDITIONS of the borrower, collateral, business, and the industry or economy in general (MORE)
A writ of certiorari is the Supreme Court's equivalent of anappeals case in lower courts. In this process four of nine SupremeCourt justices must agree that there is sufficient evidence to hearthe case. If they do agree to go forward, a writ of certiorari isthen created.
President Jackson opposed the Supreme Court's ruling in CherokeeNation v. Georgia because he felt that the gold being found on theCherokee land was more important than them occupying the land. Hewanted them removed because their land was very valuable.
According to K-9 Magazine , in September 2008, a dog named Scooby was called as a witness in a murder trial in France. This was a first for French law and it is also believed to have been the world's first time a dog has appeared as a witness at a trial. Thomas Cassuto , the judge, praised the… dog for his "exemplary behavior and invaluable assistance". The way may now be better cleared for a wild animal from a zoo to appear in court as a witness due to this recent historic event. But, obstacles will no doubt remain for this to become a frequent occurrence world wide. For example, it could certainly be argued that a wild zoo animal is considerably less reliable as a witness than is a domesticated canine. As to what questions could be asked, each situation would potentially have a different answer to the question. It could make a big difference what offenses the case involves, the jurisdiction of the court, the precedence from prior verdicts, if a summary judgment is being requested or a full trial, and the tolerance of the judge. If the animal is appearing as an expert witness, counsel would need to be sure the zoo animal is prepared for cross-examination on its qualifications. Some zoo animals do not handle interrogation very well. Eye-witness accounts may be less accepted from bats, for example, and it might take much more to convince a jury to consider the nose-witness accounts of some zoo animals than it would take for others. Additional considerations to be addressed by the prosecution and defense teams pre-trial include: Will a court-accepted translator be available who is qualified in each of the many world and species languages that come with the territory of zoo animal communications? Will the court be willing to convene at times appropriate for the creature, such as night court for the nocturnal species? How hostile will the witness appear when in court away from its natural habitat? Will the jury or judge be biased because of personal allergy or phobias or by the offensive odors, behaviors, or appearances of some witnesses? Bias and bigotry for and against certain species and their testimonies based upon thousands of years of preconceptions from lore, mythology, and literary assignment of qualities and characteristics to certain animals (rightly or wrongly assigned) could be a considerable obstacle for one side of the case or the other. Jury selection could be an extremely drawn out and difficult process. For example, how would you find a juror who will accept the accounts of a weasel as just as believable as those of an owl? Will a skunk's testimony stink and lack detail that an elephant could easily pull from memory? Are snakes going to have to work as consultants to the law firms instead of being welcomed to testify directly in court? Will a horse be more appreciated for the sense and practical knowledge that he can provide in his witness account than can an ox? Can a jury be convinced of the innocence of the motives of a fox or will they assume some cunning conspiracy is lurking beneath the surface of its testimony? Yes, your question leads to many other questions. One thing that you can probably count on, however, as a defense attorney in such a case, is that the witnesses would be able to relate to the accused criminal's life behind bars with empathy. (MORE)
The Court has established rules governing its process and procedures, among these being Rule 10, which helps determine whether certiorari should be granted or denied. The Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States , adopted in February 2010, states the following: Rule 10. Considerations Go…verning Review on Writ of Certiorari "Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court's discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers: . (a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power; . (b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals; . (c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court. A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law." Most cases accepted on appeal involve decisions that conflict with the High Court's interpretation of the Constitution or federal law, or that the Justices believe need clarification in order to establish a precedent for application across all lower courts. Granting certiorari does not necessarily mean the Court disagrees with the final appellate court decision; there have been many instances in which those verdicts have been affirmed. Likewise, denying certiorari is not an indication that the Court agrees with the appellate court decision. (MORE)
In 2009, the US Supreme Court received 7,738 requests for case review, called a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. Because the volume of cases is so high, and there are only nine Justices on the Court, only 1-2% (75-150 cases) of the submitted petitions are granted certiorari. . When the Petitio…n arrives, it goes into the Cert Pool, which is an electronic holding area for cases in need of review. Justices can opt in or out of the Cert Pool, meaning they can choose whether to participate in the initial round of reviews (older Justices sometimes choose to opt out, if the workload is too demanding). . Each participating Justice places their clerks in the pool, and the clerks are randomly assigned cases to review and summarize. The assignment is designed to discourage clerks from selecting cases in which they have a particularly interest, to avoid the temptation of writing summaries in a way that skews the presentation or presents a bias. . The Cert Pool, instituted in 1973 by the Burger Court, has been criticized as not being as ideologically neutral as intended, and for the fate of each Petition depending strongly on which particular clerk reads it. . After the clerks summarize the Petitions, they circulate copies of their summaries to each of the nine Justices for review. . The Justices meet privately in conference to discuss and vote on whether to accept briefs (more detailed information, lower court opinions, etc.). If at least four of the nine Justices vote to grant the petition, the case proceeds to the briefing stage; otherwise, certiorari is denied and the case ends. . The results of the conference are published as orders of the Court, and those granted certiorari are scheduled for oral argument and placed on the docket. . The justices issue a writ of certiorari, or order for the case files, to the lower court, and the Clerk of Court notifies the attorneys involved in the case of important dates and other requirements. (End role of petition here) . The attorneys for submit briefs and/or responses to opposing briefs. . People and organizations with an interest in the case, but who are not parties to the case, may submit amicus (friend of the court) briefs providing opinions or additional information. . The justices review all submitted legal material relevant to the case. . The justices may hear oral arguments or conduct a paper review. . The case is discussed in conference and the justices take a preliminary vote, and later, a final vote. . One justice is assigned to write the opinion of the Court; other justices may choose to write concurring or dissenting opinions. . The justices read and make suggestions about the written opinions. . The decision is announced and published. For more information, see Related Questions, below. (MORE)
Writs of Certiorary can only be issued by, and within, the court system demanding the lower court to forward a case for review. Individuals cannot file them.
"On writ of certiorari to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit" means the US Supreme Court has issued a writ of certiorari, or an order for the named court to send the records of a particular case, to the Supreme Court because the Court has granted a petitioner's request for appeal. The Ni…nth Circuit is the appellate Circuit that reviews cases originating in District (trial) Courts for the following areas: District of Alaska District of Arizona Central District of California Eastern District of California Northern District of California Southern District of California District of Hawaii District of Idaho District of Montana District of Nevada District of Oregon Eastern District of Washington Western District of Washington District Court of Guam United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands . (MORE)
Generally speaking, any witness in any court proceeding can refuse to answer a question on the grounds that it may incriminate him (that is, "plead the Fifth"). There can be consequences for doing so. For example, if you are a party in a civil, not criminal case, your adversary can use your plea …against you. It is also possible that pleading the fifth when you are a witness in a criminal trial could motivate the authorities to investigate. If you are compelled to testify as a witness in a matter, and you are concerned that your testimony might implicate you in a crime, then you should ABSOLUTELY hire a lawyer, and follow their advice, before you go to court (MORE)
The Iphone 5C is Iphone 5Colorful 5c can also stand for thenumber 500 ("c" is the Roman numeral for 100) or for 5 degreesCelsius (centigrade) . +++ . "5c" can not stand for any Roman numerals forthree reasons. For a start you do not mix Arabic and Roman numeralslike that - it would be nonsensica…l. Secondly, the Roman for 100 is capital " C ", but thirdly, in the Romanscale, 5 is V, 50 is L and 500 is D. The ' C ' isalso capital for degrees Celsius / Centigrade. (MORE)
Appellate courts are created to review decisions of lower courts.They promote efficiency at the federal judicial level by serving asan in between step between district courts and the Supreme Court.
Is there a case cite where a pro se litigant filed for a Writ of Certiorari to the US Supreme Court to overturn an Oregon court decision on judicial disqualification?
An extensive database search of petitions and cases reviewed by the SCOTUS revealed no documents that met all of the following criteria: . Petition to US Supreme Court for Writ of Certiorari . Supreme Court of Oregon or Oregon Supreme Court or US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit . Appell…ant or Petitioner pro se . Judicial disqualification or recusal or recuse . The closest match was Baldwin v. Reese, 541 US 27 (2004), certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (282 F.3d 1184). Baldwin v. Reese (2004) Michael Reese was convicted of kidnapping and attempted sodomy in the state of Oregon and sentenced to 33 years in prison. He received court-appointed counsel who unsuccessfully filed appeals and requests for post-conviction relief through the state courts. After the lower courts denied him collateral relief, Reese filed a pro se petition for review in the Oregon Supreme Court, claiming, among other things, "ineffective assistance of appellate counsel," "imprisonment in violation of State law," and that his trial counsel's conduct had "violated several provisions of the Federal Constitution." The Oregon Supreme Court declined to review the case. Reese next filed a writ of habeas corpus in Federal District Court. The Court held that he had not "fairly presented" his claim of ineffective counsel in the state judiciary, and thus did not yet have standing in the federal courts. The U.S. Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit reversed the district court ruling, declaring that Reese had, indeed, "fairly presented" his claim, despite expressing an opinion that the brief had been inadequately prepared, because the Oregon Supreme Court had "the opportunity to read . . . the lower [Oregon] court decision claimed to be in error before deciding whether to grant discretionary review." George Baldwin, Superintendent, Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution, petitioned the US Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which it granted to determine whether the 9th Circuit had correctly interpreted the "fair presentation" requirement.. The Rehnquist Court voted to reverse the 9th Circuit's ruling, 8-1, with Justice Stevens dissenting. Justice Breyer delivered the majority opinion, which began with an acknowledgment that Reese's petition, by itself, would not have alerted the Oregon Supreme Court to the federal nature of his claim. He went on to address the error in the 9th Circuit's reasoning: . "We recognize that the justices of the Oregon Supreme Court did have an "opportunity" to read the lower court opinions in Reese's case. That opportunity means that the judges could have read them. But to say that a petitioner "fairly presents" a federal claim when an appellate judge can discover that claim only by reading lower court opinions in the case is to say that those judges must read the lower court opinions--for otherwise they would forfeit the State's opportunity to decide that federal claim in the first instance. In our view, federal habeas corpus law does not impose such a requirement." . and . "For these reasons, we believe that the requirement imposed by the Ninth Circuit would unjustifiably undercut the considerations of federal-state comity that the exhaustion requirement seeks to promote. We consequently hold that ordinarily a state prisoner does not "fairly present" a claim to a state court if that court must read beyond a petition or a brief (or a similar document) that does not alert it to the presence of a federal claim in order to find material, such as a lower court opinion in the case, that does so." . The Supreme Court declined to address the case on its merits, instead reversing and remanding to the lower courts.. Attorney Dennis Balske argued the cause for Reese. (MORE)
May an accused whose motion for reconsideration is denied file a petition for certiorari with the supreme court?
Answer I believe so. An accused has the right to file for a petition for certiorari having been aggrieved by the order of the regional trial court. For example, the accused has been detained for more than 4 years and was released after the court granted a provisional dismissal of the case on t…he ground of failure to prosecute. After some time, the complainants moved for the revival of the case. Unbeknownst to the accused, the case was revived. A motion for reconsideration was then filed, but the same was denied by the trial court on the ground that the revival was within the two year grace period for provisional dismissals. The accused plans to go to the US Supreme Court by way of a motion for certiorari. Answer If the person is only looking for another opportunity to prove him- or herself innocent, then the answer is no. Answer Yes and no. First, the person must be convicted of a crime in order to exercise the appellate process. A convicted person who exhausts all lower court appeals has the right to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the US Supreme Court; however, if the person hasn't preserved (raised at the trial and on appeal) one or more significant federal questions (constitutional issues) directly related to his or her case, the petition will be summarily rejected. Approximately 70% of all petitions for writ of certiorari are filed in error, and lack proper grounds for appeal. The petitioner needs to be aware that the Supreme Court will not review the case on merit, and will generally not take cases that simply allege errors or misapplied laws, unfair as that may seem. The Court's primary mission is to ensure the Constitution is being interpreted and applied correctly (in their opinion) and consistently via statutes and lower court decisions. (MORE)
My ex has lost two appeals and now has filed a Certiorari which my current lawyer does not handle. What do I need to do if anything to respond to this is the Supreme Court of Texas?
YOU, as an individual, do not have to worry about answering a Writ of Certiorari because you will never receive one. They are "inter-court" legal orders that require an 'inferior' court to submit documents to the 'superior' court which issued the "cert." The equivelant order that would be issued to …an individual would be an "Order to Produce." Whatever the court wanted you to produce would be specified in the order. (MORE)
Yes, even a lower state or federal District Court can find a law relevant to a case or controversy before the count unconstitutional if the court has a rational basis for making that determination. Such cases often end up being petitioned to the US Supreme Court for a definitive answer.
Only in specific and tightly restricted conditions. For instance, if a witness makes a recorded deposition but dies prior to the actual trial, the the recording may sometimes be introduced even though the witness is no longer available to be questioned.
What an excellent question. A court trial is a step in our guaranteed right to due process in a criminal case. Each state has a step by step procedure in place to comply with this Constitutional guarantee. It is a trial held to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused with evidence and test…imony that has been accepted by the court to present in the case. A media trial is not an actual trial, it is a term used to describe the tendency of the media to decide the guilt or innocence of an accused based on whatever they decide is evidence, whether it would be acceptable in a court of law or not. A media trial also includes a great deal of opinion on the part of the media participants. (MORE)
You could file a petition for reconsideration; however, this is unlikely to be successful. Typically, when the US Supreme Court denies certiorari, the decision of the last appellate court to rule on the case becomes final, and the matter is considered res judicata (legally concluded).
In cases that reach the Supreme Court on certiorari does the Petitioner bring the case against the Respondent?
Yes. The Petitioner (or Appellant) brings his or her case against the Respondent (or Appellee). The Petitioner is the one who files a petition for a writ of certiorari. Usually, this means the Petitioner lost in the intermediate Court of Appeals, but there have been occasional instances where the… winning party files first, in anticipation of the decision being challenged. This strategy is sometimes employed because the Petitioner gets to present his (or her) case first, and may reserve a portion of his allotted 30 minutes for rebuttal after the Respondent has argued. Having an opportunity to rebut the opponent's argument can present a significant advantage. (MORE)
Most petitions for Writ of Certiorari are denied. For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Answer 1 There are no serious questions in the scientificcommunity that create a stumbling block for evolution by naturalselection. One of the main sources of negative questions concerningevolution is that those who reject the idea, usually on religiousgrounds, think that evolution is a replacemen…t for all aspects ofCreation and therefore target, primarily, questions that Creationanswers but that Evolution says nothing about. Evolution by natural selection only asserts that each creature,even each sex within the same creature, and the general environmentexerts a selection pressure on every other creature. Theseselection pressures will guide a species to center on a particularvariant within the species best suited for the environment. Thatvariant will then become the new base and the selection pressureswill narrow again. Over millions of years, this will result inspecies going extinct completely or in one area and being replacedby a different but similar species. Eventually, this will result increatures significantly different than the original creature. Evolution does not deal with abiogenesis which is the idea thatlife can come from non-life. Evolution requires something to beliving to be alive for it to work. Many people raise the questionof abiogenesis, which has much less evidence than evolution inorder to question evolution. However, since evolution does not dealwith abiogenesis, the questions are irrelevant to evolution per se. Evolution does not deal with early cosmology, the formation of theuniverse, or the formation of the solar system and Earth. Evolutionis a biological theory, not a physics or cosmological theory.However, some individuals will ask, "If you believe in evolution,where did the Earth come from?" Evolution has no connection to thatanswer. It would be like asking, "If you believe that Jesus wasresurrected after three days, why did Buddha need to starve himselffor forty-nine days to receive revelation?" The two fields areirrelevant to one another. [See the discussion section for more of a debate on some semanticsabout evolution.] Answer 2 Although the prevailing opinion regarding origins has the majorityof scientists in support, many of these acknowledge that there area number of questions which remain unanswered regardingevolutionary theory. Most would agree that these questions, whileunresolved, do not 'oppose evolution' but are merely unresolvedquestions. Noted atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins in aninterview about his book "The Greatest Show on Earth" referred tofour of his favourite "unsolved mysteries" as follows: 1. The origin of life- "That is a complete mystery" he said. 2. The origin of sex. 3. The origin of consciousness. 4. The rise of morality. (source: Boyle, A., The not-so- angry evolutionist, 14th October2009) The evolutionist G A Kerkut defined what is called the 'generaltheory of evolution' (GTE) as 'the theory that all the living formsin the world have arisen from a single source which itself camefrom an inorganic form.' Dawkins, as mentioned above, (as do manyother evolutionists) regard this issue as one that remains to besolved. Some evolutionists try to suggest that the origin of lifeissue is not connected with evolution at all. However, this has notgenerally been so from Darwin himself onwards. Evolutionist Gordy Slack states on this issue, "I think it isdisingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant toevolution. It is no less relevant than the Big Bang is to physicsor cosmology. Evolution should be able to explain, in theory atleast, all the way back to the very first organism that couldreplicate itself...And to understand that organism fully, we wouldsimply have to know what came before it. And right now we arenowhere close." (Slack,G What neo-creationists get right-anevolutionist shares lesson's he's learned from the intelligentdesign camp, The Scientist , 20 June 2008). Other scientists highlight the following issues which remain to beaddressed: 1. Information Theory (i.e. biological information): Livingthings contain masses of information encoded in their DNA, as wellas the code-reading mechanism, together with the epigenetic codewhich controls gene expression. Dawkins in The BlindWatchmaker (p115) stated There is enough informationcapacity in a single human cell to store the EncyclopediaBrittanica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over." In The Greatest Show on Earth (page 405) Dawkins states,"The difference between life and non-life is a matter not ofsubstance but information. Living things contain prodigiousquantities of information. An intelligent message always requires an intelligent sender. Thiswould appear to be simply impossible through random unguidednaturalistic means. Computer simulations where evolutionistscontrol the result through their intelligent input and produce aresult supposedly showing evolution can happen are far removed fromthe real world due to the unrealistic scenarios favourable to theiroutcome. 2. Mutations: do not create new Genetic informationnecessary for microbes to man evolution to work. For a dinosaur tochange into a bird would require an incredible amount of new DNA tobe written into its genome. Mutations are shown universally inscience to be harmful in terms of the information content. Where anorganism benefits from a mutation there is still no increase ininformation but often a loss. Dawkins himself when asked could notgive one single example of an information-adding mutation. 3. Natural Selection considered to be a mechanism ofevolution can only select from what is already there (and thereoften is a high degree of adaptability in the genome of variousspecies e.g. all the different dog breeds but still all dogs).Nothing new is ever created by natural selection, as shown by themodern science of genetics, developed since Darwin's time. Assomeone aptly stated -natural selection may explain survival of the fittest, but it doesn't explain arrival of thefittest. 4. Genetic Entropy- although estimates vary (some higher somelower) human geneticists generally agree that the human genome isaccumulating around 100 new mutations per person per generation.These mutations are too small to produce measurable effects and soare not 'weeded out' by natural selection. Geneticists also notethe 100's of mendelian genetic disorders in mankind. These figuresalso suggest strongly that mankind should not exist at all if it asold as postulated. . (MORE)
The US Supreme Court received 7,738 petitions for Writ of Certiorari (requests for case review) in 2008 (the most recent year for which statistics are available). This represents about a 20% increase over the number of cases submitted a decade earlier, and 234% more than the 2,313 the Court receiv…ed in 1960. According to Court literature, the justices hear oral arguments for approximately 100 cases per Term, and issue full opinions for 75-85 of those. They write orders for another 50-60 cases reviewed without argument. The Supreme Court estimates the justices generate approximately 5,000 pages of written opinions each Term. For more information, see Related Questions, below. (MORE)
When the US Supreme Court issues a writ of certiorari (an order to the lower court to send up records), it indicates they have agreed to review the case under their appellate jurisdiction.
The supreme court opposed the New Deal, because there were nine members in total, and seven were Republicans. The Republicans did not agree with President Roosevelt's New Deal laws.
If the US Supreme Court grants a petition for writ of certiorari, the justices decide whether to hear oral arguments, and assign research tasks to their law clerks. The Clerk of Court places the case on the docket, schedules oral arguments (if applicable), and notifies the attorneys for the parties …so they can prepare merit and reply briefs. (MORE)
At least four of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court must agree to grant a petition for a writ of certiorari. This is called the rule of four . Conversely, five votes are required to determine the outcome of a case after it is heard.
The US Supreme Court received 7,738 petitions for Writ of Certiorari (requests for case review) in the 2008-2009 Term (the most recent year for which information is available). The Court estimated it had received more than 10,000 petitions last Term, but the number was revised downward in the Chief …Justice's year-end report. This represents about a 6.1% decrease in the number of cases submitted for the 2007-2008 Term, but 234.5% more than the 2,313 the Court received in 1960. Due to limitations on the amount of work a nine-Justice Court can handle, only 1-2% of these petitions are granted. The Court typically hears between 75-100 cases per year, and sometimes has to carry a case forward until the following year's docket. (MORE)
The US Supreme Court is an appellate court under most circumstances. If it grants certiorari, it will hear the case. This question only makes sense if you're trying to determine whether an intermediate appellate court will hear a case from a trial court if the case has been accepted on direct, …or expedited, appeal to the Supreme Court. The answer to that question is no. Cases granted certiorari on direct appeal bypass the intermediate appellate court. (MORE)
Certiorari is a Latin word that means "to be informed." A writ ofcertiorari is an appellate court order requesting the lower courtsend up the records for a case accepted on appeal. The term is mostoften associated with the US Supreme Court. Certiorari is anextraordinary prerogative writ granted in c…ases that otherwisewould not be entitled to review. A petition for certiorari is madeto a superior appellate court, which may exercise its discretion inaccepting a case for review, while an appeal of a case from a lowercourt to an intermediate appellate court, or from an intermediateappellate court to a superior appellate court, is regulated bystatute. (MORE)
Sheriff Tate is one of them im still trying to find the other three tho.
discretionary appellate jurisdiction (the US Supreme Court typically issues writs of certiorari) For more information, see Related Questions, below
A writ of certiorari is a form of judicial review where a court is asked to consider a legal decision of a lower court, an administrative tribunal, judicial office, or organization (eg: government) and to decide if the decision made by the inferior body has been regular and complete, or if there has… been an error of law, and if the tribunal had the power to make the decision complained of, or whether the tribunal exceeded its powers in issuing the decision complained about. For example, a certiorari may be used to wipe out a decision of an administrative tribunal which was made in violation of the rules of common law, such as a failure to give the person affected by the decision an opportunity to be heard. Therefore: If the court denies certiorari, then it has ruled that, in its opinion, it has no need (or perhaps no jurisdiction) to review or examine the matter at hand. (MORE)
When it comes to granting a petition for a writ of certiorari, theU.S. Supreme Court applies the Rule of Four.
The Supreme Court applies the traditional "rule of four" that prescribes at least four justices must agree to hear the case in order for the Court to grant certiorari.
If the U.S. Supreme Court denies a petition for a writ of certiorari (a request to hear a case on appeal), then the decision of the lower court is final. Denial of certiorari occurs in 98-99% of cases, and in no way implies that the court agrees with the lower court's decision. Denial only means …that the case, as presented, isn't of sufficient importance to warrant a review, doesn't involve constitutional issues, conforms to a precedent already set, falls outside the court's jurisdiction, or is moot, etc. Between 7,500 and 8,500 cases are presented for review each year, but the court can only choose 80-150 to hear, so the Justices have to limit themselves to those cases that have the greatest impact on the law and on society. (MORE)
After the justices review the petitions for a writ of certiorari, they're discussed at a case conference in which the justices vote whether to accept the case on appeal. According to the "rule of four," if four justices agree to hear the case, the Court will issue a writ.
A writ of certiorari (Latin: "to be informed") is an order from an appellate court to a lower court to send the records for a specified case under review. When the US Supreme Court issues a writ of certiorari, it means they have granted a party's petition for writ of certiorari (request) to con…sider a case under the Court's appellate jurisdiction. In reality, issuance of a formal writ of certiorari is obsolete. Today, the US Supreme Court Clerk of Court typically requests case files from the lower courts using routine administrative processes, rather than serving a court order. The justices initiate this process when they agree to grant certiorari to a case. (MORE)
How many Supreme Court justices must vote in favor of a Writ of Certiorari for the Court to issue one?
4 Four of the nine justices must vote to grant a writ of certiorari (the so-called Rule of Four). Only a fraction of the petitions submitted to the Supreme Court will be accepted ; approximately 7500 petitions are presented each year and somewhere between 80 and 150 are granted.
all of these depend on what position you play in the court room. Some would normally be for the prosecutor, defendant, or witness. Some of these questions wouldn't be asked if you played a different roll. 1) where were you at (date of crime)? 2) can you describe (name of someone)? 3) can you s…tate your name for the records? 4) how would you feel if...(depends on situations, they would most likely ask you if you were in the situation) 5) can you tell me what happened? (just asking for your side of the story) 6) what were you doing there? 7) around when was the last time you spoke to (defendant/prosecutor/etc) 8) did you ever...(various things could be said, always depending on what the situation is) 9)Do you plead Guilty or Not Guilty? 10)Is the person you saw at the scene here in court today? (MORE)
The law generally requires you to answer questions truthfully in court, although there is a constitutional exception made on the basis of the fifth amendment, which allows you to refuse to answer on the grounds that you may incriminate yourself. You do not, however, have the legal right to refuse to… answer on the grounds that you have been threatened. If you have been threatened, the legally correct procedure would be to report that threat to the police so that they can arrest the person who threatened you, on the grounds of obstructing justice. In practice, this is not always the most effective approach, and the police cannot always protect you from everyone, so depending upon the circumstances, you might choose to violate the law, and lie in court. However, if at all possible, it is better to tell the truth so that justice can be done and guilty people can be convicted of their crimes. If they are not convicted, they will only be encouraged to commit more crimes. And if people can control you by making threats, that will encourage them to make more threats. This often has unfortunate results. So think carefully Added: What the first contributor neglected to add: Regardless of your self-justification - if it is later found that you lied in court you can face prosecution for Criminal Contempt of Court. This is a criminal offense for whcih fines and/or jail time can be levied. (MORE)
It would be necessary for a superior court to overturn a ruling from a lower court ( that is an appeal).
In court, attorneys often ask only Yes-No questions. This tightlycontrols what answers that get spoken.
This is the same as the "cross examination" of a certain attorney to a witness.
What are the conditions that give a federal court jurisdiction in a case as opposed to a State Court?
If the case involves a question of federal law, or if the federal court has diversity jurisdiction (parties reside in different states and minimum amount in dispute.)
If you disagree with the facts of the case, and a ruling is contrary to established law, you can appeal the ruling to a higher court.
5cc? cc means cubic centimetres which is equal to ml, so 5ml. if you mean cl, then that is equal to 50ml
Re-writing a question while correcting the mistakes in it is not difficult at all. Spell check is a great tool to use to check spelling, which can make the process easier.
It means that the court has determined that the case does not meet the merits of being argued in the Supreme Court and the appeal is denied.