Civil cases can be "settled" out of court, if the parties are able to reach an agreement. Criminal cases may be plea-bargained if the defendant agrees to the conditions offered by the prosecuting attorney.
There are two ways a case can reach the Supreme Court.The first way is by far the most common: A case is first heard by a trial court. If one of the parties doesn't like the outcome, they appeal. The case is then heard by an appeals court, who has the power to overturn the decision of the trial court. The first appeal is a "gimme" - the appeals court hears everyone's appeal. If one of the parties STILL doesn't like the outcome, they can try to appeal again. The Supreme Court, however, does not have to accept every appeal. To appeal to the Supreme Court, you have to write a "petition for certiorari." If they accept your case, we say that the Supreme Court has "granted cert."The second way is very rare: the Constitution gives the supreme court "original" jurisdiction over a narrow class of cases (mostly cases between states or involving ambassadors.) This means that if a case is of that type, the Supreme Court can take it directly, without any trial court. The court almost never accepts a case this way.
Arbitration is generally the best way to go. In court cases there are nothing but winners and losers. At least in arbitration both parties walk away with something. However, if one party feels that all the right is on their side they can go to court and 'roll the dice.'
On a regular basis the justices meet in a special conference room by themselves. They discuss cases with each justice having an opportunity to give his opinion why the case should be decided one way or another. At the end of the discussion a voice vote is taken and the determination whether the lower court decision is affirmed or reversed is decided then and there. If the Chief Justice is in the majority, he decides whether he will write the court's opinion or have one of the associate justices of the majority write it. If the Chief Justice is not in the majority, then the senior associate justice within the majority decides whether he or she will write the court opinion or delegate the writing to one of the other associate justices in the majority.
Courts can change over time due to shifts in societal values, changes in laws, developments in technology, and evolving legal interpretations. These changes can impact the composition of the court, the types of cases that are brought before it, the way in which cases are heard and decided, and the overall administration of justice.
The American legal system hears civil and criminal cases. A court case can go all the way to the Supreme Court to be heard.
When a previous court case is overturned, it means that the case has been reviewed by a higher court, and the ruling has been changed. For instance, if someone is found guilty in a district court, they may be found not-guilty in a federal court.
Read the court cases. Depending on where you're from, the web site for the cases will vary. As I live in Canada, only Canadian laws will apply to me, therefore http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/ would be an excellent site.
it is called "libel" if it is in print It is called "slander" if spoken. That would be decided by the court. It does not necessarily have to be an untrue statement. It could be defamatory and have adverse effects on someone. However if it is true and the court decided that way it would no longer be classed as libel.
Two different types of cases exist, Criminal and Civil. The likelihood that either will end up in front of the US Supreme Court are quite Slim.We will use Florida's procedure for criminal cases. Other states have basically the same procedures but use different names:First comes the trial in the circuit court. If the prisoner does not have a lawyer, the state will provide him with one. Assume he is found guilty.Next he can appeal his conviction. The state will provide him with an appeal lawyer. This is before a District Court of Appeals. (It is called A Supreme Court in New York). From this point on, the State no longer provides a lawyer. (If a different District Court of Appeals ruled a different way concerning the same law, the prisoner can appeal to the State Supreme Court.)After that, the sentencing judge has 60 days to make his sentence final, before that he can change the terms. The prisoner can send information concerning that to the judge.Next comes collateral appeals to the circuit courts and courts of appeal. These have deadlines of two years and one year. You can use the two years. After you get that one back, the one year deadline starts.Finally, if there are federal issues and they were brought up in one of the various state appeals, they can be brought up in a collateral appeal to a Federal Circuit Court, a 1 year deadline. That decision can be appealed to a Federal District Court of Appeal. Finally, you can send your appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Now, what the Supreme Court is usually looking for is a certifiable issue. That is a point where one District Court of Appeal decided one way on a point of law and another one decided a different way. Frequently you will read, "Cert. Denied." That means they did not want to referee between the two courts. Other times they take the case.
The rule of four. It requires at least four of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court to agree to grant the Petition for Certiorari. If four Justices agree to grant the petition, the Supreme Court will consider the case. A Petition for Certiorari is granted in very, very few, selected cases--fewer than 100 a year-by the Supreme Court of the United States.Each justice on the U.S. Supreme Court has a number of skilled law clerks working for him or her and these clerks review every writ of certiorari and submit a "cert memo" regarding the writs they review to the justice they are assigned. The judges review the memos and hold a conference to determine which of these cases should go on the court's docket.The "Rule of Four" controls matters when deciding which issues the high court will hear. If four justices agree that a specific writ of certiorari should be granted, then the case will be placed on the Supreme Court's docket and an order stating that certiorari has been granted will be issued to the petitioner.According to Supreme Court Rules, Section III, Rule 10, the following guidelines help justices determine which cases are viable for review (called cert. worthy):Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Writ of CertiorariReview 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.
The decision to assign jurisdiction to the Supreme Court for cases where the parties are in different states is something that was decided in the Judiciary Act of 1789. It is thought that this is the only way to guarantee each party that the judging would be impartial, though it does require extensive research of state laws for Federal court staff.
The real issue is why does the Supreme Court choose to hear a specific case. Anyone can send a case or an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court last served as a court of original jurisdiction in 1924. It insists that it has the right to serve in that capacity. It is doubtful that the Chief Justice has any idea of what circumstances could possibly arise that would require the Supreme Court to be a court of original Jurisdiction. Normally the Supreme Court hears appeal of cases dealing with conflicts in laws. If the fifth circuit in Baton Rouge rules one way in a specific situation and then the 11th Circuit in Atlanta rules a different way and then the Ninth Circuit in California rules yet a different way, then the Supreme Court might hear an appeal. Then the Supreme Court will listen to the material. It will make its decision. From then on, the rules as to how the law will be applied the same way in all of the different courts.