what level of courts handle reviews of lower court decisions
appellate court
8781
Appellate court An appellate court, commonly called an appeals court, court of appeals (American English), appeal court (British English), court of second instance or second instance court, is any court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal of a trial court or other lower tribunal. In most jurisdictions, the court system is divided into at least three levels: the trial court, which initially hears cases and reviews evidence and testimony to determine the facts of the case; at least one intermediate appellate court; and a supreme court (or court of last resort) which primarily reviews the decisions of
Appellate court
2498436
find facts, view the evidence firsthand, and observe witness testimony. When reviewing lower decisions on an issue of fact, courts of appeal generally look for clear error. The appellate court reviews issues of law de novo (anew, no deference) and may reverse or modify the lower court's decision if the appellate court believes the lower court misapplied the facts or the law. An appellate court may also review the lower judge's discretionary decisions, such as whether the judge properly granted a new trial or disallowed evidence. The lower court's decision is only changed in cases of an "abuse of discretion".
Appellate jurisdiction
9668080
are binding on lower courts. Thus, judgments of the Court of Appeal are binding on the High Court, and judgments of both of these superior courts are binding on subordinate courts. A judge is generally not bound by previous decisions made by other judges in courts of the same level. Thus, a judge hearing a High Court case need not follow previous High Court decisions. Nonetheless, courts generally do so as a matter of comity, unless there are good reasons for doing otherwise. As the final appellate court in Singapore, the Court of Appeal is not bound by its previous
Sources of Singapore law
14330905
civil, probate, and criminal cases, except as otherwise provided herein, and shall have such appellate jurisdiction as may be prescribed by law." The constitution also provides for a unique probate court in the consolidated city–county of Denver, which has exclusive jurisdiction in matters of probate and administration of estates. Appeals from the district court go to the intermediate appellate court, the Colorado Court of Appeals, and in some cases go directly to Colorado Supreme Court, which is the state supreme court. The lower Colorado county courts, which are courts of limited jurisdiction, handle civil cases under $15,000. Decisions from the
Colorado district courts
62772
simplified system described above. The decisions of a court are binding only in a particular jurisdiction, and even within a given jurisdiction, some courts have more power than others. For example, in most jurisdictions, decisions by appellate courts are binding on lower courts in the same jurisdiction, and on future decisions of the same appellate court, but decisions of lower courts are only non-binding persuasive authority. Interactions between common law, constitutional law, statutory law and regulatory law also give rise to considerable complexity. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. cautioned that "the proper derivation of general principles in both common and constitutional
Common law
5576185
California courts of appeal The California courts of appeal are the state intermediate appellate courts in the U.S. state of California. The state is geographically divided into six appellate districts. The courts of appeal form the largest state-level intermediate appellate court system in the United States, with 105 justices. The decisions of the courts of appeal are binding on the California superior courts, and both the courts of appeal and the superior courts are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court of California. Notably, all published California appellate decisions are binding on all trial courts. This is distinct from
California courts of appeal
2498434
Appellate jurisdiction Appellate jurisdiction is the power of a higher court to review decisions and change outcomes of decisions of lower courts. Most appellate jurisdiction is legislatively created, and may consist of appeals by leave of the appellate court or by right. Depending on the type of case and the decision below, appellate review primarily consists of: an entirely new hearing (a non trial de novo); a hearing where the appellate court gives deference to factual findings of the lower court; or review of particular legal rulings made by the lower court (an appeal on the record). Under Article Three
Appellate jurisdiction
4968031
in administrative tasks. Even this was not enough to handle the load. In 1891 the Appellate Court of Indiana was created to handle cases of lower importance. At first the appellate court only took a small portion of the Supreme Court's caseload, but its responsibility gradually increased. In 1970 state constitutional amendments reorganized the Court. The constitution renamed the Appellate Court the Indiana Court of Appeals. With the formation of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court could choose which cases it would hear and which cases it would leave to the lower courts. Constitutional amendments also lengthened judicial terms
Supreme Court of Indiana
12198908
court system was integrated. The criminal, civil, family and environmental courts became part of a new Superior Court. The Probate Court was merged with the family court in February 2011 and all applicable county employees became state employees. Superior Courts exercise exclusive jurisdiction over most civil cases, including torts and lawsuits over small claims of $5000 or less. Superior courts also reviews decisions of lower courts and appeals to administrative agency decisions. Three judges, a presiding judge and two assistant judges sit on each Superior Court. The assistant judges (or side judges) are elected county officials, who sit with the
Judiciary of Vermont
7671889
Supreme court The supreme court is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts in many legal jurisdictions. Other descriptions for such courts include court of last resort, apex court, and highest (or final) court of appeal. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts. However, not all highest courts are named as such. Civil law states tend not to have a single highest court. Additionally, the highest court
Supreme court
16500629
the hands-on work under control of DPPs. Each magistrate's court has one or more prosecutors, depending on its size. The biggest, Johannesburg, has well over 100. Prosecutors do prosecutions in the magistrate's courts and in regional courts. DPPs also have a number of prosecutors on their own staff, known as state advocates. They perform High Court prosecutions, appeal from lower courts, and also spend much time assisting with the decision process in cases referred to the DPP for decision. They also handle representations from the public. Most decisions on criminal cases are taken by prosecutors in the lower courts, who
Criminal procedure in South Africa
10710759
court proceedings with appeals going directly to the Oregon Supreme Court. The Oregon Circuit Courts are the trial level courts of the state for both criminal and civil proceedings, with the majority of appeals going to the Oregon Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals handle appeals from the Circuit Courts and county courts, with appeals of their decisions going to the Oregon Supreme Court. Oregon’s highest state court is the Oregon Supreme Court. The court has seven justices elected statewide to six-year terms. These justices then elect one member to serve a six-year term as Chief Justice. The court
Oregon Judicial Department
16436252
decisions on appeal. The highest state court, the Supreme Court of California, has discretion to review decisions made by lower courts. Cases brought before the Supreme Court are typically intended to resolve “important questions” related to state law. The court system is hierarchical where decisions issued by higher courts set precedence for lower courts. For example, decisions of the California Supreme Court are binding on all Appellate and Superior Courts and decisions of Appellate Courts are binding on Superior Courts within the same district. The majority of climate change cases have been heard by Superior Courts; only a small number
Climate change litigation and the California Environmental Quality Act
1998015
For instance, all Ontario lower courts are bound by the decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal and, all British Columbia lower courts are bound by the decisions of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. However, no Ontario court is bound by decisions of any British Columbia court and no British Columbia court is bound by decisions of any Ontario court. Nonetheless, decisions made by a province's highest court (provincial Courts of Appeal) are often considered as "persuasive" even though they are not binding on other provinces. Only the Supreme Court of Canada has authority to bind all courts in
Law of Canada
2069583
country, with what would now be termed supervisory jurisdiction over baronial and local courts. Decisions of those courts could be reviewed by the royal courts, as part of the Crown's role as the ultimate fountain of justice. The royal courts became known as the "superior courts", while lower courts whose decisions could be reviewed by the royal courts became known as "inferior courts". The decisions of the superior courts were not reviewable or appealable, unless an appeal was created by statute. Superior Courts in Canada exist at the federal, provincial and territorial levels. The provincial and territorial superior courts of
Superior court
8249920
or referendum. The Supreme Court may also hear criminal cases against members of the Federation Council of Russia and the State Duma and federal judges by their discretion. The Supreme Court is also the court of last resort for cases heard in lower courts since it reviews decisions of lower courts. When petition requesting reverse of a decision of a Supreme Court of Federal Subject comes to the Supreme Court it is observed by one of the judges of the Supreme Court. He may either submit it to respective Board or decline to do it if he finds decision of
Supreme Court of Russia
2115357
department affected by the government order. The Council acts as the supreme court of appeal for administrative law courts. It hears both claims against national-level administrative decisions (e.g., orders, rules, regulations, and decisions of the executive branch) and appeals from lower administrative courts. The Council's decisions are final and unappealable. While strictly speaking the Council is not a court, it functions as a judicial body by adjudicating suits and claims against administrative authorities. Plaintiffs are represented by barristers drawn from the Senior Court bar whose members are licensed to argue cases before the Council and French Supreme Court; any such
Conseil d'État (France)
308884
systems follow the doctrine of "stare decisis", by which most courts are bound by their own previous decisions in similar cases, and all lower courts should make decisions consistent with previous decisions of higher courts. For example in England, the High Court and the Court of Appeal are each bound by their own previous decisions, but the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is able to deviate from its earlier decisions, although in practice it rarely does so. Generally speaking, higher courts do not have direct oversight over day-to-day proceedings in lower courts, in that they cannot reach out on
Precedent
8971647
decisions must stand because that was what the Constitution mandated (see Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea). Sir Buri quickly established that notwithstanding any implications of the Rooney Affair as to relations between the Executive and the Judiciary, the judiciary was wholly independent: Indeed, the hierarchy of case law precedent is that while the Supreme Court has authority to overrule any case authority, its own decisions are binding on the lower courts as are the decisions of the English superior courts prior to PNG's independence, which are deemed to be part of PNG's underlying law. The decisions of the pre-Independence
Buri Kidu
20595722
stability, and "up-to date law", on the other. There is a hierarchy of courts, and a hierarchy of decisions. All lower courts are bound by the judgments from higher courts; and higher courts are not bound by decisions from lower courts. With one exception, courts of record are bound by their own precedent decisions. The House of Lords used to be bound by its own decisions, but in 1966 it issued a Practice Direction declaring that it would no longer feel so constrained; the Supreme Court is similarly free to depart from earlier decisions. By contrast, the Court of Appeal
Mechanisms of the English common law
11252524
rather than factual issues. Professor Shores, for instance, argues that, short of a national court of tax appeals that would provide consistent decisions about what the tax law means, substantial improvement in the level of consistency would be provided by the appellate courts adopting the "Dobson" approach of great deference to Tax Court decisions. While Shores takes the view that the Tax Court is more likely to correctly interpret federal tax laws than generalist courts, he appears to prize uniformity in interpretation of the tax code as the primary virtue to be sought, quoting with favor a view that "it
Uniformity and jurisdiction in U.S. federal court tax decisions
5051972
decisions of district courts that have not yet entered into force, and consist of 3 judges. District courts ( or ; also called ' or ' courts), which were called People's Courts until 1996, are primarily courts of first instance but sometimes hear appeals from magistrate courts. They are formed in areas ( or ""), urban areas (), and cities (). Decisions of the court are appealed to the regional court. As courts of first instance, they handle criminal cases where imprisonment is for more than 3 years, and consist of 1 judge and a jury where required. As courts
Judiciary of Russia
694118
State court (United States) In the United States, a state court has jurisdiction over disputes with some connection to a U.S. state, as opposed to the federal government. State courts handle the vast majority of civil and criminal cases in the United States; United States federal courts handle different types of cases. Generally, state courts are common law courts, and apply their respective state laws and procedures to decide cases. They are organized pursuant to and apply the law in accordance with their state's constitution, state statutes, and binding decisions of courts in their state court hierarchy. Where applicable, they
State court (United States)
7790459
a trial. Basic people's court A basic people's court () is a lowest level court in the Courts of General Jurisdiction in the People's Republic of China. According to the "Organic Law of the People's Courts of the People's Republic of China", the basic people's courts handle the first instance cases at the local level. Basic people's courts are set up at the county and district level. They consist of a president, vice president, and judges. A basic court may be further divided into criminal, civil, and economic divisions. Basic people's courts also handle cases that are deemed too trivial
Basic people's court
7790458
Basic people's court A basic people's court () is a lowest level court in the Courts of General Jurisdiction in the People's Republic of China. According to the "Organic Law of the People's Courts of the People's Republic of China", the basic people's courts handle the first instance cases at the local level. Basic people's courts are set up at the county and district level. They consist of a president, vice president, and judges. A basic court may be further divided into criminal, civil, and economic divisions. Basic people's courts also handle cases that are deemed too trivial to require
Basic people's court
11252512
at the district court level. Similarly, there can be varying interpretations of law among the courts of appeals. Even if one or more of the decisions are appealed to the Supreme Court, a final interpretation resolving divergent viewpoints from the lower courts may not be rendered; the Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction, meaning it can choose which cases it wishes to hear. Professor Steve R. Johnson, in part quoting Professor David F. Shores, characterizes the diversity as follows: "'It is difficult to imagine an adjudication system less conducive to uniform decisionmaking than the current fragmented system of federal tax trials
Uniformity and jurisdiction in U.S. federal court tax decisions
17062541
District courts of Russia The district courts of Russia ( or ; also called ' or ' courts) are primarily courts of first instance in the judiciary of Russia but sometimes hear appeals from magistrates' courts. They are formed in "" or areas (), urban areas (), and cities (). Decisions of the court are appealed to the regional court. As courts of first instance, they handle criminal cases where imprisonment is for more than 3 years, and consist of 1 judge and a jury where required. As courts of appeal from decisions of the magistrate courts consisting of 1
District courts of Russia
62771
the facts. Then, one must locate any relevant statutes and cases. Then one must extract the principles, analogies and statements by various courts of what they consider important to determine how the next court is likely to rule on the facts of the present case. Later decisions, and decisions of higher courts or legislatures carry more weight than earlier cases and those of lower courts. Finally, one integrates all the lines drawn and reasons given, and determines "what the law is". Then, one applies that law to the facts. In practice, common law systems are considerably more complicated than the
Common law
12297812
only felonies as lesser crimes are handled by local courts. There are numerous administrative courts which are not considered part of the judicial branch of government. Decisions of the New York Court of Appeals are binding authority on all other courts, and persuasive authority for itself in later cases. Decisions of the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division department panels are binding on the lower courts in that department, and also on lower courts in other departments unless there is contrary authority from the Appellate Division of that department. Decisions by the Supreme Court, Appellate Term must be followed by
Judiciary of New York (state)
8249917
a legal education, and have at least 10 years of service. The Supreme Court consists of the Judicial Panel for Civil Affairs, the Judicial Panel for Criminal Affairs, and the Military Panel, which deal with respective cases. Those cases in which the Supreme Court is the original jurisdiction are heard by the panels. Appeals of the decisions of the panels are brought to the Cassation Panel. Whereas a panel reviews the decisions of lower courts, an appeal is brought to the Presidium of the Supreme Court. Plenary sessions of the Supreme Court are held at least once every four months.
Supreme Court of Russia
7206447
(high) courts are the second instance and the Supreme Court is the third instance. The Supreme Court is Norway's highest court of justice and the instance of appeal for verdicts handed down by courts of a lower level. The court is situated in Oslo. The decisions made here are final and cannot be appealed or complained against. The only exception is for cases that can be brought before the Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg. The King of Norway has sole authority to appoint judges to the country’s Supreme Court and other senior courts. He does so on the advice
Judiciary of Norway
11252511
appeals ("circuit courts"), which are the intermediate appellate courts. Circuit court decisions are binding on the district courts within their jurisdiction, imposing some degree of uniformity. When an appeal from a decision of a court of appeals is taken to the federal high court, the Supreme Court of the United States, further uniformity is imposed, because the Supreme Court's decisions are binding on all lower federal courts. If there are no applicable appellate decisions by the United States Supreme Court or by the court of appeals in the relevant district court jurisdiction, however, there may be a diversity of outcomes
Uniformity and jurisdiction in U.S. federal court tax decisions
12089697
that case, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Gall's case in order to clarify how the lower federal courts should handle sentences falling outside the Guidelines range. After "United States v. Booker", , the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are merely one of seven factors federal district courts must look to when imposing sentences, and federal appellate courts must review those sentences for "reasonableness." "Our explanation of 'reasonableness' review in the "Booker" opinion made it pellucidly clear that the familiar abuse-of-discretion standard of review now applies to appellate review of sentencing decisions." At the same time, while the Guidelines are one factor
Gall v. United States
11729000
remaining 3 islands. An overview of court locations is shown below Judges for both first instance cases and on appeal are taken from a single pool of judges. The Courts of first instance sit as a single judge, while the appeal session are headed by a 3-judge panel. Judges that took part in at case at the lower level may not participate in a case at this level. Most decisions of the court of appeal may be appealed "in cassatie" to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands in The Hague. Decisions of the Supreme Court are final and do not
Joint Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten, and of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba
238202
the English Common Law, its general law operates independently. Lesotho also applies the common law, which refers to unwritten law or law from non-statutory sources, but excludes customary law. Decisions from South African courts are only persuasive, and courts refer to them in formulating their decisions. Decisions from similar jurisdictions can also be cited for their persuasive value. Magistrates' courts decisions do not become precedent since these are lower courts. They are however bound by decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal. At the apex of the Lesotho justice system is the Court of Appeal, which is
Lesotho
1735818
or agency and corporate decisions. Decisions of the Appellate Division department panels are binding on the lower courts in that department, and also on lower courts in other departments unless there is contrary authority from the Appellate Division of that department. If two different departments have made different rulings on the same issue, then the lower courts in each departmental area must follow the ruling made by the higher court for their particular department. This can sometimes result in the same law being applied differently in different departments. When this occurs, the highest court in the state, the Court of
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
19542046
Precedent", which enjoys the status of law. Judiciary branches of the Supreme Court have the right to hear the complaints about lower courts' decisions. The parties involved in the legal proceeding do not appear in court unless the court cites them for explanations. The rulings issued by this court are in the form of annulment and confirmation of lower courts' decisions. Article 161 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran on "the Supreme Court" states: Supreme Court of Iran is the highest juridical authority in Iran established to supervise the correct implementation of laws by courts of justice,
Supreme Court of Iran
19357177
businesspeople, according to the law and where the scope of the issue is greater than that of a lower court but not beyond the Autonomous Community. It hears appeals against decisions of and decisions related to labour matters of commercial courts ("Juzgados de la Mercantil") within the Community. It settles labour-related insolvency cases, and may rule on issues of competency between two or more lower social courts. Superior Court of Justice of Spain The Superior Courts of Justice (), or High Courts of Justice, are courts within the judicial system of Spain, whose territorial scope covers an Autonomous Community, as
Superior Court of Justice of Spain
17340173
New York Court of Appeals are binding authority on all other courts, and persuasive authority for itself in later cases. Decisions of the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division department panels are binding on the lower courts, and are persuasive authority for the Court of Appeals, other Appellate Division departments. In the absence of a relevant Appellate Division decision from a trial court's own department, the trial court is bound by the applicable decisions of other departments. Decisions by the Supreme Court, Appellate Term must be followed by courts whose appeals lie to it. Published trial court decisions are persuasive
Law of New York (state)
7671895
the principles applied by the supreme court in its decisions are binding upon all lower courts; this is intended to apply a uniform interpretation and implementation of the law. In civil law jurisdictions the doctrine of "stare decisis" is not generally considered to apply, so the decisions of the supreme court are not necessarily binding beyond the immediate case before it; however, in practice the decisions of the supreme court usually provide a very strong precedent, or "jurisprudence constante", for both itself and all lower courts. The Supreme Court of Bangladesh is created by the provisions of the Constitution of
Supreme court
308900
court changes the ruling (or the law itself is changed), the binding precedent is authoritative on the meaning of the law. Lower courts are bound by the precedent set by higher courts within their region. Thus, a federal district court that falls within the geographic boundaries of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the mid-level appeals court that hears appeals from district court decisions from Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the Virgin Islands) is bound by rulings of the Third Circuit Court, but not by rulings in the Ninth Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana
Precedent
396704
Constitution (which includes issues arising from federal treaties, statutes, or regulations), and those appeals are heard at the Court's sole discretion (that is, only if the Court grants a petition for writ of certiorari). In theory, state supreme courts are bound by the precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court as to all issues of federal law, but in practice, the Supreme Court reviews very few decisions from state courts. For example, in 2007 the Court reviewed 244 cases appealed from federal courts and only 22 from state courts. Despite the relatively small number of decisions reviewed, Professors Sara Benesh
State supreme court
18188110
Administrative courts in Sweden The administrative courts in Sweden () are the court of first instance for the general administrative courts in Sweden. The next instance are the administrative courts of appeal (). The administrative courts handle numerous types of cases relating to disputes between private persons and the authorities. There are 12 administrative courts spread across Sweden. Over 500 different kinds of cases are assigned to the administrative courts. For example: Other common cases are: driving licence revocation, alcohol licensing, animal welfare issues, appeals on public procurement decisions and agricultural subsidies. Decisions made by the Swedish Migration Agency, on
Administrative courts in Sweden
11148557
courts are subdivided into numbered "circuits." Pennsylvania, for example, is in the jurisdiction of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In general, the decisions of a higher court in a court system may be considered "binding" on the lower courts in that court system. The decisions of the Supreme court of a particular state are binding on the courts within that state. However, the decisions of a Pennsylvania state court may or may not be followed by a federal court in the Third Circuit, which includes Pennsylvania. The status of United States Supreme court opinions is complex, but U.S. Supreme
Legal research in the United States
15001742
Supreme Court of Albania The Supreme Court of the Republic of Albania () is the highest court of Albania and is the final court of appeal in the judicial system of Albania. It is composed of seventeen judges, the Chief Justice and sixteen Members. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the judicial branch of the country with its premises located in Tirana. Its main mission is to review the decisions of lower instance courts upon the appeal from one of the parties. It reviews the matter at hand dealing with only with issues of law, without judging the
Supreme Court of Albania
4566637
charters. West-Saxon charters prefer to reserve the term "prefectus" for the ealdormen (earls) themselves. After the Norman conquest, feudalism was introduced, forming a parallel administrative system to the local courts. The feudal system organised land on a manorial basis, with stewards acting as managers for the landlords. The Norman term describing the court functionary—"bailiff"—came to be used for reeves associated with lower level courts, and with the equivalent role in the feudal courts of landlords. Courts fulfilled administrative, as well as judicial, functions, and on the manorial level its decisions could concern mundane field management, not just legal disputes. The
Reeve (England)
17671970
the island which exercises the jurisdiction of the court of first instance and the appellate jurisdiction with both civil and criminal jurisdiction. District Courts are lower courts, headed by a District Judge who is vested with original civil jurisdiction. Magistrate's Courts are lower court headed by a Magistrate who is vested with original criminal jurisdiction. The Primary Courts in are lower courts and are the courts of first instance. Labour Tribunals are tribunals formed under the Industrial Disputes Act No.62 of 1957, to handle labour disputes and termination of employment. Military courts in Sri Lanka are court martials (the General
Judiciary of Sri Lanka
4880366
Alaska Supreme Court The Alaska Supreme Court is the state supreme court in the State of Alaska's judiciary (the Alaska Court System). The decisions of the Alaska Supreme Court are binding on all other Alaska state courts, and the only other courts that may reverse or modify those decisions are the United States federal courts. The Supreme Court hears appeals from lower state courts and also administers the state's judicial system. It hears cases on a monthly basis in Anchorage, approximately quarterly in Fairbanks and Juneau, and as needed in other Alaska communities. The court prefers to hear oral arguments
Alaska Supreme Court
4349758
by a lower court. Appealed cases generally originate from lawsuits or criminal indictments filed and tried before the trial courts. These decisions of the trial courts may then be elevated on appeal to the Court of Appeals, or more rarely, directly to the Supreme Court if only “questions of law” are involved. Apart from decisions of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court may also directly review on appeal decisions rendered by the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals. Decisions rendered by administrative agencies are not directly appealable to the Supreme Court, they must be first challenged before the
Supreme Court of the Philippines
2810131
as listed in the Voter's Pamphlet. Oregon's state courts are courts of general jurisdiction, unlike federal courts. That is, the state courts can hear all cases regardless of whether the dispute is based on state law, federal law, or a combination of both, with a few exceptions. Thus the Oregon Supreme Court can hear appeals for cases based on both federal and state law. Although the U.S. Supreme Court is the only court that can overturn decisions of the Oregon court, Oregon Supreme Court decisions as to federal law are only binding on other Oregon state level courts. Federal courts
Oregon Supreme Court
15001753
By virtue of the law and an amendment in 2013 by Law Nr. 151, the Supreme Court is divided into a Civil College, a Penal College, an Administrative College, which have jurisdiction for a specified area, and the en banc United College. When functioning as a court of last resort, the Supreme Court of Albania hears legal recourses from aggrieved parties and reviews the validity of decisions of the lower courts for the case aggrieved. In certain cases when the Supreme Court wants to clarify the interpretation of a given legal provision or change previous court practice, the court may
Supreme Court of Albania
12821151
administrative supervision of all courts in the state. The Supreme Court also establishes rules for practice and procedure in all courts. The Michigan Court of Appeals is one of the highest volume intermediate appellate courts in the country. It was created by the 1963 Michigan Constitution and heard its first cases in January 1965. Generally, decisions from final orders of a circuit court, as well as some probate court and agency orders, may be appealed to the court as a matter of right. Other lower court or tribunal decisions may be appealed only by application for leave to appeal, i.e.,
Courts of Michigan
759958
of Afghanistan mandates a Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority in Afghanistan, and is the court of last resort. Judges are appointed by the President, and confirmed by the National Assembly. Lower courts included magistrate courts, Courts of First Instance, and Intermediate Court of Appeals. Intermediate Court of Appeals review decisions of lower courts, before appeals are sent to the Supreme Court. If an appeal loses, they can be sent to the Supreme Court. Courts of First Instance exist in every city. They have several branches which tries all major cases. The branches include Criminal, Civil,
Politics of Afghanistan
4880373
procedural rules by passing an act expressing its intent to do so by a two-thirds majority of both houses. Alaska Supreme Court The Alaska Supreme Court is the state supreme court in the State of Alaska's judiciary (the Alaska Court System). The decisions of the Alaska Supreme Court are binding on all other Alaska state courts, and the only other courts that may reverse or modify those decisions are the United States federal courts. The Supreme Court hears appeals from lower state courts and also administers the state's judicial system. It hears cases on a monthly basis in Anchorage, approximately
Alaska Supreme Court
17100629
the highest state court and the court of last resort in Puerto Rico. Article V of the Constitution of Puerto Rico vests the judicial power on the Supreme Court The Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico (") reviews decisions of the Courts of First Instance in addition to the final decisions of administrative agencies. The Judiciary Act of 1992 created the Court of Appeal as an intermediate court between the Courts of First Instance and the Supreme Court. The seat of the Court is in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The Court consists of 39 judges. The Court of First Instance
Judiciary of Puerto Rico
17062542
justice of the peace, they consist of 1 judge and retry the case. They were called People's Courts until 1996. District courts of Russia The district courts of Russia ( or ; also called ' or ' courts) are primarily courts of first instance in the judiciary of Russia but sometimes hear appeals from magistrates' courts. They are formed in "" or areas (), urban areas (), and cities (). Decisions of the court are appealed to the regional court. As courts of first instance, they handle criminal cases where imprisonment is for more than 3 years, and consist of
District courts of Russia
20677321
revenues, other provinces were more equivocal on the issue. There was very little common ground among the parties as to what type of test should be applied with respect to the scope of s. 121: The appeal was allowed. In a "per curiam" ruling, the Court held that the judge at first instance erred in departing from previous decisions of the Court. Subject to the extraordinary exceptions noted in "Bedford" and "Carter", "stare decisis" requires a lower court to apply the decisions of higher courts to the facts before it, and the exceptions did not apply in this case. The
R v Comeau
5852138
are "ex tempore", intermediate-level courts' decisions are not binding on inferior courts - that is to say, that in New South Wales, the District Court's decisions are not binding on the Local Court (see Valentine v Eid (1992) 27 NSWLR 615 and "stare decisis"). Ex tempore decisions are not binding on later courts due to the quick nature of their delivery after the hearing of a case. Therefore, these decisions are of persuasive authority only and a later court, dealing with a case of similar facts, can reach a different conclusion if it is appropriate and the court in question
Ex tempore
15402917
in the majority decision in "Windsor" has produced varying interpretations in later legal decisions that address state regulation of marriage and the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples. Courts have disputed whether "Windsor" relied upon federalism or equal protection and what standard of review the Supreme Court applied. Others have used it to dismiss the precedential importance of "Baker v. Nelson". Within 2 years of the "Windsor" decision 28 district courts and 4 appeals court ruled state level same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional, while only 2 district courts and one appeals court ruled they did not. In December 2013, a
United States v. Windsor
1919598
almost all cases, are handled by lower courts: the New York City Criminal Court; the District Court in Nassau County and the five western towns of Suffolk County; city courts; and justice courts, and so on. Appeals from Supreme Court decisions, as well as from the Surrogate's Court, Family Court, and Court of Claims, are heard by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division. This court is intermediate between the New York Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals. There is one Appellate Division, which for administrative purposes comprises four judicial departments. Decisions of the Appellate Division department
New York Supreme Court
17107524
appeals from the trial-level city and county Circuit Courts. Although the Supreme Court of Virginia possesses both original and appellate jurisdiction, its primary function is to review decisions of lower courts, including the Court of Appeals, from which appeals have been allowed. Virginia does not allow an appeal to the Supreme Court as a matter of right except in cases involving the State Corporation Commission, attorney disciplinary actions including the disbarment of an attorney, and review of the death penalty. The court's original jurisdiction is limited to cases of habeas corpus (ordering one holding custody to produce the detained person
Judiciary of Virginia
308896
By definition, decisions of lower courts are not binding on courts higher in the system, nor are appeals court decisions binding on local courts that fall under a different appeals court. Further, courts must follow their own proclamations of law made earlier on other cases, and honor rulings made by other courts in disputes among the parties before them pertaining to the same pattern of facts or events, unless they have a strong reason to change these rulings (see Law of the case re: a court's previous holding being binding precedent for that court). In law, a binding precedent (also
Precedent
4968019
of jurisdiction by the other lower courts of the state. When the Court accepts a case, it reviews the documentation of the trials in the lower court and sometimes allows oral arguments before making a decision. In some cases the justices will issue a decision without hearing arguments from either side and will base their decision solely on evidence submitted in the lower courts. The Court can order a new trial to take place in the local court, overturn the decision of lower courts and enforce its own decision, or uphold the decision of lower courts. The Court appoints three
Supreme Court of Indiana
1699102
and other bodies discharging adjudicatory functions. In common law countries, "case law" is a near-exact synonym for "common law". In the common law tradition, courts decide the law applicable to a case by interpreting statutes and applying precedents which record how and why prior cases have been decided. Unlike most civil law systems, common law systems follow the doctrine of stare decisis, by which most courts are bound by their own previous decisions in similar cases, and all lower courts should make decisions consistent with previous decisions of higher courts. For example, in England, the High Court and the Court
Case law
4881341
Rooker–Feldman doctrine The "Rooker–Feldman" doctrine is a rule of civil procedure enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in two cases, "Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.", and "District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman", . The doctrine holds that lower United States federal courts—i.e., federal courts other than the Supreme Court—should not sit in direct review of state court decisions unless Congress has specifically authorized such relief. In short, federal courts below the Supreme Court must not become a court of appeals for state court decisions. The state court plaintiff has to find a state court remedy, or obtain
Rooker–Feldman doctrine
4532832
developing a coherent body of case law, or at least it is able to focus on making decisions in consistent fashion (in jurisdictions where case law is not recognized). The disadvantage is that it reduces the ability of litigants to seek review of incorrect decisions of lower courts. However, the problem with allowing appeals of right through all appellate levels is that it encourages parties to exploit every technical error of "each" level of the court system as a basis for further review. Discretionary review forces parties to always concentrate their resources on persuading the trial court to get it
Discretionary review
6826160
at the pace it should be. The hierarchy of case law precedent is that while the Supreme Court has authority to overrule any case authority, its own decisions are binding on the lower courts as are the decisions of the English superior courts prior to PNG's independence, which are deemed to be part of PNG's underlying law. Decisions of the pre-Independence Supreme Court of PNG are deemed to be foreign law, equivalent in authority to decisions by any foreign court with a similar legal system, and of persuasive value only. The principle of the mere persuasiveness of overseas (and pre-Independence
Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea
16957080
other courts unless they are reversed by an Act of Parliament or the Supreme Court itself. Decisions of the Supreme Court of Namibia are all recorded in the Namibian law reports and some in South African law reports. Judiciary of Namibia The judiciary of Namibia consists of a three-tiered set of courts, the Lower, High and Supreme Courts. The Lower Courts are established by an act of Parliament and are bound by the four corners of legislation. There are several lower courts in Namibia. They are the magistrates' courts, the (labour) arbitration tribunals and the customary courts. Magistrates' courts deal
Judiciary of Namibia
8434728
The Chairman has several deputies. There are two Boards in the Supreme Court of Arbitration, which supervise decisions of lower courts of arbitration whenever appeal is lodged by a disappointed party. One Board hears cases concerning private law and the other hears cases concerning public law (for example, if a corporation is charged with tax evasion or files for bankruptcy). The Presidium of the Supreme Court of Arbitration deals with appeals on decisions of lower courts of arbitration which have already entered into force. Only the Prosecutor General of Russia, Chairman of the Supreme Court of Arbitration and his deputies
Supreme Court of Arbitration of Russia
20740161
responsibility of a system of specialized administrative courts. There are some exceptions to this general rule: In effect, the administrative court system hears complaints about decisions made by executive officials that The constitution provides a taxative enumeration of the types of decisions that can be fought in an administrative court: The administrative court system has two levels: administrative trial courts (, singular ), which have original jurisdiction, and the Supreme Administrative Court (), which hears appeals against the verdicts of the lower courts and which supervises them in other respects as well. The international scholarly literature generally translates "" as
Supreme Administrative Court (Austria)
4892083
dicta", the "ratio decidendi" is, as a general rule, binding on courts of lower and later jurisdiction—through the doctrine of "stare decisis". Certain courts are able to overrule decisions of a court of coordinate jurisdiction—however, out of interests of judicial comity, they generally try to follow coordinate rationes. The process of determining the "ratio decidendi" is a correctly thought analysis of what the court actually decided—essentially, based on the legal points about which the parties in the case actually fought. All other statements about the law in the text of a court opinion—all pronouncements that do not form a part
Ratio decidendi
12513954
the administrative courts - the Tax Court. These deal with cases involving members of the Armed Forces. First-instance military courts (Dilmil) consider cases regarding military personnel whose ranks are not higher than a captain. High military courts (Dilmilti) consider appeals against decisions of the lower Dilmil courts and also act as first-instance courts in cases, involving military personnel with ranks of a major and above. The Primary Military Court (Dilmiltama) hears appeals against the decisions of Dilimilti courts and also decides upon issues of jurisdiction of the military courts. Judges decide cases based on written law. If there is no
Judiciary of Indonesia
19375102
It also undertakes forcible judicial execution for execution deed stipulated by law, as well as executions by deputation or reference”. Sharia Courts Sharia courts focus on civil disputes in which the parties are Muslims. They depend on the juristic provisions provided for in the Quran and the Hadith to render decisions. “The Sharia court may, at the federal level only (which, as mentioned earlier, excludes Dubai and Ras Al Khaimah), also hear appeals of certain criminal cases including rape, robbery, driving under the influence of alcohol and related crimes, which were originally tried in lower criminal courts." Civil Courts The
Judicial system in the United Arab Emirates
308929
recognized as being "de facto" binding on lower courts. The doctrine of "jurisprudence constante" also influences how court decisions are structured. In general, court decisions of common law jurisdictions give a sufficient "ratio decidendi" as to guide future courts. The ratio is used to justify a court decision on the basis of previous case law as well as to make it easier to use the decision as a precedent for future cases. By contrast, court decisions in some civil law jurisdictions (most prominently France) tend to be extremely brief, mentioning only the relevant legislation and codal provisions and not going
Precedent
13765536
others. Malaysia's judicial system has a Federal Court, a Court of Appeal, High Courts (secular and Sharia in some states), Sessions Courts, Magistrate's Courts, and Juvenile Courts. The Federal Court reviews decisions referred from the Court of Appeal, and the Federal Court has original jurisdiction in constitutional matters and in disputes between states or between the federal government and a state. In May 2007, the Federal Court ruled that Muslims are not entitled to freedom of worship, even though such freedom is guaranteed by Malaysia's Constitution. By a two-to-one decision, the Court held that the secular courts have no jurisdiction
Blasphemy law in Malaysia
20082036
Semanario Judicial de la Federación The Mexican Federal Judicial Weekly () contains the published of the judiciary of Mexico. Mexico utilizes a form of . The decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on lower courts as only upon five consecutive and uninterrupted decisions () approved by at least eight justices when in plenary sessions () or by at least four justices when in chambers. The decisions of the Collegiate Circuit Courts are provided they are based upon five consecutive and uninterrupted decisions approved by unanimity of votes of the magistrates who compose each collegiate court. Decisions are distilled into
Semanario Judicial de la Federación
18188123
geographic boundaries of the administrative courts of appeal and the lower courts. Administrative courts of appeal in Sweden The administrative courts of appeal in Sweden () is the second tier for the general administrative courts in Sweden. The next and final instance is the Supreme Administrative Court (). There are four administrative courts of appeal, and they mostly handle cases and other judicial issues that have already been dealt with by the lower courts. In addition to this, they also act as court of first instance in cases related to the principle of public access to official records. The territorial
Administrative courts of appeal in Sweden
7671920
of private law and criminal law. In Brazil, the Supreme Federal Tribunal ("Supremo Tribunal Federal") is the highest court. It is both the constitutional court and the court of last resort in Brazilian law. It only reviews cases that may be unconstitutional or final "habeas corpus" pleads for criminal cases. It also judges, in original jurisdiction, cases involving members of congress, senators, ministers of state, members of the high courts and the President and Vice-President of the Republic. The Superior Court of Justice ("Tribunal Superior de Justiça") reviews State and Federal Circuit courts decisions for civil law and criminal law
Supreme court
3358033
prolonged arbitrary detention; and forced disappearance to be actionable under the ATS. Since "Sosa", courts have struggled to define the level of specificity required for a norm to be actionable under the ATS. For example, subsequent to "Sosa", the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit overturned prior lower-court decisions that had found cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment actionable, noting that "Sosa" repudiated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a source of law under the ATS. Similarly, courts have held that economic, social, and cultural rights are too indeterminate to satisfy "Sosa"'s specificity requirement. For example,
Alien Tort Statute
669360
authorized to hear all criminal cases that have occurred in the county as well as limited jurisdiction over civil cases. The County Court handles felony cases exclusively and shares jurisdiction with the town and village justice courts on misdemeanor cases and other minor offenses and violations. The County Court's jurisdiction on civil cases is limited to those involving less than $25,000. Each of the towns and fifteen of the villages have Justice Courts. These courts mostly hear routine traffic ticket cases, especially from the New York State Thruway and the Palisades Interstate Parkway. They also handle drunk driving charges, lower-level
Rockland County, New York
5213716
criminal proceedings, and for some work in assessing the damages (amounts claimable) in civil proceedings. The current Associate Judge of the Supreme Court of Tasmania is Mr Stephen Holt (appointed 6 September 1999). Supreme Court of Tasmania The Supreme Court of Tasmania is the highest State court in the Australian State of Tasmania. In the Australian court hierarchy, the Supreme Court of Tasmania is in the middle level, with both an appellate jurisdiction over lower courts, and decisions made by Court to be heard on appeal by the High Court of Australia. The ordinary sittings of the Court occur in
Supreme Court of Tasmania
5213710
Supreme Court of Tasmania The Supreme Court of Tasmania is the highest State court in the Australian State of Tasmania. In the Australian court hierarchy, the Supreme Court of Tasmania is in the middle level, with both an appellate jurisdiction over lower courts, and decisions made by Court to be heard on appeal by the High Court of Australia. The ordinary sittings of the Court occur in Hobart, Launceston and Burnie in Tasmania. The Court's Appeal division sits only in Hobart. The Supreme Court of Van Diemen's Land (as Tasmania was then known) was established by The Royal Letters Patent
Supreme Court of Tasmania
308885
their own initiative ("sua sponte") at any time to reverse or overrule decisions of the lower courts. Normally, the burden rests with litigants to appeal rulings (including those in clear violation of established case law) to the higher courts. If a judge acts against precedent and the case is not appealed, the decision will stand. A lower court may not rule against a binding precedent, even if the lower court feels that the precedent is unjust; the lower court may only express the hope that a higher court or the legislature will reform the rule in question. If the court
Precedent
6012238
However, since this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case. As binding precedent, "Baker" has prevented lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issue the Court adjudicated in dismissing the case. When dealing with precedents like "Baker," lower courts may have to guess at the meaning of these unexplained decisions. The Supreme Court has laid out rules, however, to guide lower courts in narrowly applying these summary dispositions: In recent years, most judges faced with claims like those in "Baker"
Baker v. Nelson
1699103
of Appeal are each bound by their own previous decisions, but the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is able to deviate from its earlier decisions, although in practice it rarely does so. Generally speaking, higher courts do not have direct oversight over the lower courts of record, in that they cannot reach out on their own initiative ("sua sponte") at any time to overrule judgments of the lower courts. Normally, the burden rests with litigants to appeal rulings (including those in clear violation of established case law) to the higher courts. If a judge acts against precedent and the
Case law
8249918
A plenary session must be attended by all judges of the Supreme Court and the Prosecutor General of Russia. At plenary sessions the Supreme Court studies the judicial decisions of lower courts on various topics and adopts resolutions, which establish recommendations on the interpretation of particular provisions of law for lower courts for uniform application. Russian law does not recognize judicial precedent as a source of law, but courts strictly follow such recommendations. The Academic Consultative Council attached to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation () is a body created in order to assist the Supreme Court in various
Supreme Court of Russia
14130305
it was permissible for judges from either court to be designated for service on courts of appeals and district courts and the decisions of the lower courts in this instance were valid. Justice Clark, writing for himself and the Chief Justice, concurred in the result, but concurred on the grounds that the 1953 and 1958 Acts made the courts Article III courts in light of the confusion that led to the "Bakelite" and "Williams" decisions, which were otherwise accurate. He found that the issues of Congressional reference cases under could be resolved by the Court of Claims declining future cases
Glidden Co. v. Zdanok
4754190
audit courts. The national court now deals primarily with the government, public establishments, and (semi-)public companies on a national level, while the regional courts handle the local level. The court may occasionally delegate national-level audits to regional courts, as is often the case with post-secondary educational facilities. An important concept in the business of the financial courts is the difference between, in French public accountings, between "ordonnateurs" (managers who order expenses and perception of payments) and "payeurs" (the public accountants who pay expenses and recoup debts). The Court only judges public accountants; but it may also make observations about the
Judiciary of France
2809053
reversed. Judicial Review allows courts to declare unconstitutional laws void. Constitutional Courts are therefore negative legislators. The interpretations of the constitution in the decisions of the Constitutional Court are also authoritative and binding on the political branches. The ordinary or lower courts may also apply judicial review. Courts of general jurisdiction may decline to apply (1) any law that violates the Constitution and (2) any normative regulations, in particular subordinate regulations that contravene statutes. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of regulations issued by government agencies. The Supreme Court has held that lower
Law of Russia
5474344
six justices. The Court is the final arbiter of Florida law, and its decisions are binding authority for all other state courts. The five Florida District Courts of Appeal are the intermediate appellate courts. The 20 Florida circuit courts are trial courts of original jurisdiction for most controversies. The circuit courts primarily handle civil cases where the amount in controversy is greater than $15,000, and felony criminal cases, as well as appeals from county courts. Circuit courts also have jurisdiction over domestic relations, juvenile dependency, juvenile delinquency, and probate matters. The 67 Florida county courts have original jurisdiction over misdemeanor
Government of Florida
106891
the greater the dependency claim by the partner and children. Solicitors will consider "like for like" injuries with the case in hand and similar cases decided by the courts previously. These cases are known as precedents. Generally speaking decisions from the higher courts will bind the lower courts. Therefore, judgments from the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal have greater authority than the lower courts such as the High Court and the County Court. A compensation award can only be right or wrong with reference to that specific judgment. Solicitors must be careful when looking at older cases
Damages
1133861
Supreme Court of Canada The Supreme Court of Canada () is the highest court of Canada, the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. Its decisions are the ultimate expression and application of Canadian law and binding upon all lower courts of Canada, except to the extent that they are overridden or otherwise made ineffective by an Act of Parliament or the Act of a provincial legislative assembly pursuant to section 33 of the "Canadian
Supreme Court of Canada
1133829
Supreme Court of Canada The Supreme Court of Canada () is the highest court of Canada, the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. Its decisions are the ultimate expression and application of Canadian law and binding upon all lower courts of Canada, except to the extent that they are overridden or otherwise made ineffective by an Act of Parliament or the Act of a provincial legislative assembly pursuant to section 33 of the "Canadian
Supreme Court of Canada
1735817
first appeals from state trial courts, including the Supreme Court and County Courts. These trial level courts exercise specific jurisdiction as conferred by law. In contrast, both the New York Court of Appeals and the Appellate Division when it sits as a final appeals court with respect to appeals arising from decisions of the Appellate Terms in the First and Second Departments, generally may only decide questions of law. The Appellate Division may adjudicate facts subject to specific constraints in the course of initial review of agency decisions under New York's CPLR Article 78, which provides for limited court review
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
8218751
other matters, the Court has regular appellate jurisdiction from the lower Courts of Appeals. Death penalty appeals are automatic as a matter of right. All other appellate review of lower court decisions in the state is obtained by the writ of certiorari process as provided for by Article V, Section 5 (A) of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974, and Rule X of the Supreme Court Rules. The Court has general supervisory and rule making authority over all the lower state courts pursuant to La. Constitution Article V, section 5 (A). On certain questions involving the persons who serve as judges
Louisiana Supreme Court
8989883
Court ordered state court reviews and the commutation of sentences of persons on death row to the next lower level of punishment. Tyler's sentence was commuted to life in prison without parole for 20 years. His defense appealed the conviction. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in 1980 that Tyler's trial had convicted him on "unconstitutional charges" and was "fundamentally unfair"; it remanded the case to the lower courts and ordered a new trial. But on state appeal, it changed its ruling in 1981, saying that attorney error by Tyler's original defense counsel did not
Gary Tyler
11658084
in Grand Panels ("") of the Divisions. The Divisions analyse and evaluate legally effective decisions of lower courts. The "Criminal Division" ("") consists of the judges of the Supreme Court, who apply substantive and procedural criminal law. The "Civil and Commercial Division" ("") is responsible for ensuring uniformity and lawfulness in the decision-making of courts in civil proceedings. It does so in extraordinary appeal proceedings against decisions of courts of appeal and within its non-decision-making jurisdiction by providing standpoints. The "Grand Panel of the Division" ("") decides cases referred to it by divisions. The "Plenum" ("") discusses the Supreme Court´s
Supreme Court of the Czech Republic
15302160
Supreme Court of Appeal, and it transferred all cases pending before the Traditional courts and its appeals court to Magistrates' courts or the High Court. The chairmen of many of the lower-level Traditional courts were appointed as magistrates and their courts became Magistrates' Courts. Many of those lower level Traditional courts that were not converted into Magistrates' courts continued to operate informally. The 1994 Constitution recognised customary law as an integral part of the legal system and provided for courts using customary law with limited jurisdiction over civil and minor criminal cases, but no legislation to set up such courts
Traditional courts in Malawi
5051973
of appeal from decisions of the magistrate courts consisting of 1 justice of the peace, they consist of 1 judge and retry the case. Arbitration courts (; also called "arbitrazh" or commercial courts) hear cases dealing with a wide matter of contractual issues, such as rights of ownership, contract changes, performance of obligations, loans, bank accounts, and bankruptcy. They operate independently of the other courts. The system of arbitration courts is supervised 30-Judge Economic Collegium that is part of an expanded Russian Supreme Court effective from August 8, 2014. Magistrate courts (; also called Justices of the Peace Courts) handle
Judiciary of Russia
619341
or 3 million SL fines, and crimes committed by juveniles), regional courts (which deal with lawsuits and criminal cases not within the jurisdiction of district courts, labour and employment claims, and local government elections), regional appeals courts (which deal with all appeals from district and regional courts), and the Supreme Court (which deals with issues between courts and in government, and reviews its own decisions), which is the highest court and also functions as the Constitutional Court. Somaliland nationality law defines who is a Somaliland citizen, as well as the procedures by which one may be naturalised into Somaliland citizenship
Somaliland
19374862
these cases belongs to the Administrative Courts of First Instance, while the Administrative Court of Appeals is the competent court for the review of the lower court decisions. After the Court of Appeals has rendered its decision, the aggrieved parties can seek redress to the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Albania. At present, there are six Administrative Courts of First Instance, comprising 36 judges, while there is one Administrative Court of Appeal, made up of 7 judges. The respective courts are as follows: Administrative courts in Albania The Administrative Courts are an integral part of the Judicial system
Administrative courts in Albania