Court Procedure

Merit in the legal context, refers to a claim which has a valid basis, setting forth sufficient facts from which the court could find a valid claim of deprivation of a legal right. Therefore, a merit hearing is one in which one side presents to the judge the facts which support their side of a case or ruling. Conversely, the other side will attempt to prove that the proponent's case has NO merit.

You will get a letter telling you when to report or give you a number to call. In my area you call the number and it tells you to report and the time or not to show up. You may have the same thing check with your courts.

The cost of a court mediator will depend on various factors, the most important being the geographic area where the mediator works. However, there is a new tool online www.actuspayus-adr.com, that allows the public to select a mediator based on the "Name Your Own Price" format. If you are concerned with price, this is perhaps the best option when locating a mediator based on price

No. The jurors had to swear an oath to be neutral, impartial, and judge the case on the facts presented alone.

If the courtsubpoenaed them, then yes they do. They must have information that is strong enough to bring a minor into a court room to testify. Sometimes depending on the case, instead of the minor going on the stand in front of everyone the DA, the prosecutor and the judge will go into a different room with the child and ask them questions so the child does not feel uncomfortable.

The plaintiff cannot - that is a judge's prerogative. The plaintiff can REQUEST that a judge consider ruling that way, but it is up to the judge as to whether he will grant it or not.

There are three major differences between trial-level courts and appellate-level courts: witnesses and exhibits, judges, and juries.

Trial courts are the courts where cases start. In the trial court, both sides present evidence to show their version of what happened. Most of the evidence presented in the trial court comes from witnesses (people who answer questions relating to the case) and exhibits (items and documents connected to the case, such as pictures, clothes, weapons, papers, etc.). However, in the appellate courts, there are no witnesses, and no evidence is presented. In appellate courts, the lawyers simply argue legal and policy issues before the judge or a group of judges. In the trial courts, the lawyers present evidence and legal arguments to persuade the jury in a jury trial or the judge in a bench trial.

The second difference between the two courts is the judges. In trial courts, there is one judge in the courtroom. That judge decides what evidence can and cannot be used and often decides the outcome of the case. In most jurisdictions, appeals are decided by more then one judge.

The last major difference between the trial courts and the appellate courts is the role of the jury. A jury is a group of citizens who listen to the facts and make decisions about the case. A jury is sometimes used in trial courts to help decide the case. In a criminal trial, the jury decides whether a person is guilty or not guilty. A criminal trial involves the government (the state of Indiana, for example) bringing charges against someone who committed a crime, such as robbery, murder, or drunk driving. In a civil trial, the jury decides whether a person is liable (legally responsible for damages) or not liable (not responsible). Individuals or companies who cannot settle a dispute file a document called a complaint to start a civil trial. Divorce, car accidents, and traffic violations are some of the most common types of civil cases. There can be a jury in either a civil or criminal trial. However, there is no jury in the appellate courts. Appellate judges determine the outcome of all appeals.

A big misunderstanding about the appellate courts is that they simply rehear the case over again, evidence and all. But the truth is that appellate courts do not rehear the facts of the case. Appellate courts focus on questions of law, NOT on questions of facts like the trial courts. The appellate judges want to know whether the law was applied accurately.

The appellate court overrules a trial court decision only if a very important legal error was made in the trial court. In some cases, the appellate court judges might believe that the outcome of the trial court should have been different, but if no legal errors were made, they will not overrule the lower court. The appellate judges make their decisions based only on legal arguments of how the law should be applied and interpreted.

Yes, if it doesn't want its decision to be overturned.

Lower courts are expected to adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis, (Latin: let the decision stand) when deciding cases that have established precedent. This helps the judiciary apply the law fairly and consistently.

Each case is unique, however, so each court that hears a particular matter may have a different interpretation as to which precedents are controlling and why. That is the type of case that often ends up in the Supreme Court for clarification.

When that guy mugger from ocp is doin it up too much.

In a tort, breach of contract, or other civil case, the person(s) or entity(ies) commencing the lawsuit is/are the Plaintiff(s). This is the party who claims to have sustained money damages as a result of the actions or inactions of the party(ies) being sued (called the Defendant(s)). The Plaintiff has the burden of proof on all elements of the cause of action, including proving the quantum of damages.

In other types of civil actions, such as that for dissolution of marriage or other equitable cause of action, the person who commences the lawsuit may be referred to as the Petitioner.

Criminal cases are different, in that they are commenced by a government entity. While the person on the receiving end of the charges is usually called the Defendant, the government entity usually brings the action in its own name (rather than being called "Plaintiff").

Yes, a person can choose to be represented in court by someone who is not a licensed attorney. An attorney is better suited to help in court since they know the laws.

This is a question on which entire textbooks have been written, and which cannot begin to possibly be fully addressed on this venue. Suggest that you contact an attorney (your attorney?) for advice on your specific situation.

Revocation

Grand juries and Petit juries are the two kinds of juries. Grand juries review evidence of criminal action to determine if there is probable cause for bringing charges and if so, issue an indictment. Petit juries review evidence in both civil and criminal trials to determine the facts and render verdicts either for or against the parties in civil actions or guilty or not guilty in criminal actions.

• The right to a speedy trial!

• The right to a public trial!

• The right to notified of the nature and circumstances of the alleged crime!

• The right to confront a witness who will testify against the accused!

• The right to find a witness who will speak in favor of the accused!

•The right to a lawyer!

•J

There are a couple of different ways to answer this, because the question is vague the way it is framed.

The easiest way to answer this is "SUE" but these the following, (which I did not add) are good too.

"Taking the person to court" as a law enforcement officer might be called "extraditing" if they're taking them to another court jurisdiction.

Subpoenas are issued to summon a person to court in some cases.

Filing suit against another person is called... Well.. Suing. Sometimes it's called "litigation" as well.

To give a specific answer to your question we would need a more specific context of "taking someone to court."

In what way? As a law enforcement officer? As a judge? As a plaintiff? As a defendant? As a part of a civil suit or part of a criminal suit?

Other questions could apply as well. To get a more specific answer we would need to have a more specific question.

The supremacy of parliament in England means that the parliament if the only supreme authority in England in the sence of legislating laws. Parliament is supreme to all government instituions and monarch also. It is the only body which can make, alter, ammend or repeal any law whatever and whenever.

Because you took an oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" in the presence of a judge or magistrate. To not tell the truth is lying ... that would put one in position of being in contempt of court.

Various states have differing regulations for the number of jurors - usually having to do with the seriousness (or lack of it) of the charges.

The purpose of a pre-trial conference is to look at the totality of the evidence to be adduced in the trial together with the pleading. That would ensure that the issues are considered and condensed in pre-trial conference minutes. ( Smith v Min Sik Pak [2008] FJHC 354 )

No. You may be sworn in by taking a sacred oath that binds your conscience, for example by swearing on the Bible, or you may affirm or promise to tell the truth without religious belief.-from http://www.plea.org/freepubs/bwc/witness.htm

It is optional. You can just promise to tell the truth.