An appellate court reviews decisions made by a trial court to determine if any legal errors were made. It differs from a trial court in that it does not hear witnesses or new evidence, but rather focuses on the legal arguments and procedures used in the original trial.
No, a president cannot be court-martialed for actions taken while in office. The President is not subject to military law as they are a civilian authority.
The phrase, 'The Court retains jurisdiction in this matter,' means that any future actions involving this matter will be administered by the court. This usually indicates a decision has been made, and if any other actions are taken, it will be taken by this particular court.
There are several ways: At the trial court level: If the order dissolving the injunction has not yet taken effect, make a motion to have the court reconsider its decision to dissolve the injunction. If the order has taken effect but the problems persist or if circumstances have changed, file a petition or motion for an order for reinstatement of the injunction. At the appellate level: If you believe the court made a mistake in dissolving the injunction, take an appeal of the court's decision and ask the appellate court to reverse the lower court's decision and reinstate the injunction.
USUALLY A TRIAL COURT IS WHEN SOMEONE IS TAKEN TO COURT FOR SOME REASON OR ANOTHER. THE APPELLATE COURT IS WHEN YOU WANT TO APPEAL A DECISION THAT WAS MADE BY THE JUDGE A trial court hears testimony, examines evidence, rules on the admissibility of evidence and objections of trial counsel, issues a judgment on the case, and imposes sentence or penalties/awards. A trial court may also impanel juries and give them instructions for deliberating. An appellate court only reviews the decisions of lower courts, which include trial courts and in some cases lower appellate courts. They do not hear testimony or examine new evidence. They only review the record of the lower court, and may hear oral arguments from the attorneys involved in the appeal. An appellate court may uphold the decision of the trial court, or return the case to the trial court for reconsideration or a new trial.
Yes, sort of. They don't remand the decision, but the case. "Remand" means to return a case to a lower court for further disposition. Usually this follows the reversal of the lower court's decision or identification of a judicial error during the trial or at sentencing, so the case may be "remanded" for a new trial or resentencing. The appellate court always specifies the reason for their decision, and the action they expect to be taken.
When any court realizes it has no jurisdiction over a matter, it must immediately dismiss it from its calendar so that it may be refiled in a court which does have jurisdiction. No further action may be taken. The decision entered by the lower court will stand until an appellate court that does have jurisdiction rules otherwise.
No actions need to be taken, as your mother still lives. She can modify the will to appoint a new executor. Or when she does pass on, the court can appoint someone else to serve.
No. If the court has taken custody of the child, the parent no longer has parental rights and cannot make decisions about the child's care or living conditions, at least until the court take actions to restore custody to the parent.
If a decision made at District Court is successfully appealled, the case gets taken to a higher court. If there wasn't a Supreme Court, cases would keep getting appealled and taken to a higher court each time. Rulings by the Supreme Court can get appealled (the case would get taken to Congress), but this process is very difficult. The Supreme Court also has a duty to make sure laws and actions by the President and Congress are not unconsitutional.
The officer must have done something very bad, he is then tried and his medals and badges are confiscated and he is punished.
When an appellate court returns a case to a lower court for further action, it is remanded. This does not represent the entirety of the decision, however; the court may also reverse, vacate, affirm in part and reverse in part, etc. The reason the case is remanded and the expected action to be taken are also included in the decision.
Vuylsteke The court awarded Vuylsteke $74,012 ($72,000 for the annual salary and $2,012 for shipping costs to move to London). Broan appealed to a state intermediate appellate court, which affirmed the award. As to Broan's argument that Vuylsteke had not taken reasonable measures to mitigate her damages, the court stated that the "question of whether a plaintiff properly mitigated damages is a question of fact. * * * Here, there is evidence in the record to support the trial court's findings." The appellate court repeated the lower court's conclusion that "under the circumstances, it was not unreasonable * * * to choose * * *to move to London." The appellate court reiterated the lower court's findings that Vuylsteke "made reasonable efforts to mitigate and was unable to find employment" and that it was "reasonable not obtaining employment of [$]25,000 in the United States." ref: http://academic.cengage.com/resource_uploads/static_resources/0324406029/10761/case12.htm