who has the ability to create federal courts
Congress
9115232
§ 8, Cl. 9) and in the judicial vesting clause (Art. III, § 1). Second, Congress has the power to make exceptions to and regulations of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This court-limiting power is granted in the Exceptions Clause (Art. III, § 2). By exercising these powers in concert, Congress may effectively eliminate any judicial review of certain federal legislative or executive actions and of certain state actions, or alternatively transfer the judicial review responsibility to state courts by "knocking [federal courts] ... out of the game." Alexander Hamilton had this to say about the issue in
Jurisdiction stripping
4022626
Convention prevented Congress from obstructing the states courts' ability to grant the writ, but did not try to create a federal constitutional right to habeas corpus". "After all, if the suspension clause itself were an affirmative grant of procedural rights to those held in federal custody, there would have been little need for the first Congress to enact as it did, habeas corpus protections in the Judiciary Act of 1789." Chemerinsky's argument has been denied by Justice Paul Stevens in a 2001 opinion in an immigration case involving the issue, where Stevens touches upon what he believes the 'far more
Alberto Gonzales
4816001
Co. v. United States", the Court recognized that federal courts could still create federal common law, albeit in limited circumstances where federal or Constitutional interests were at stake, Congress had inadequately addressed the situation sub judice, and the application of individual state laws in various jurisdictions would create unacceptable levels of diversity or uncertainty. When fashioning new federal common law, the Court may either adopt a reasonable state law, look to its own precedent, or create new law. Federal common law is valid only to the extent that Congress has not repealed the common law. The Supreme Court has explained
Federal common law
5062435
release some works that would be affected by the law. Other than this, generally, there are usually no exceptions to the standing issue at the Federal level. Secondly, the Court has interpreted the clause as limiting Congress' ability to confer jurisdiction on federal courts. It does so by establishing an outer limit of the types of matters within which Congress may constitutionally confer jurisdiction. Historically, the Court has not interpreted this Clause to limit Congressional power to "restrict" the jurisdiction of the federal courts. The delicate phrasing of the Clause and the ambiguity of the terms therein has inspired frequent
Case or Controversy Clause
9858964
"liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter! I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state's ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage." Paul has been a cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in each Congress since the bill's original introduction. It would bar federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Speaking in
Political positions of Ron Paul
19377696
about Article III. Article III does not "require" Congress to create lower federal courts, but when Congress does--as they did in the Judiciary Act of 1789, establishing the federal court system we know today--they are subject to limitations emanating from Article III and other constitutional provisions. For example, Congress cannot prohibit all African Americans from bringing a lawsuit, as this would independently violate Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment. In addition, Congress potential could not, for example, allow discrimination cases to only be filed in-person in the District Court of Puerto Rico, as this might substantially burden the ability of
Emergency Price Control Act of 1942
12851751
1968, as amended, was enacted by the Congress to create a new federal judicial officer who would (1) assume all the former duties of the commissioners and (2) conduct a wide range of judicial proceedings to expedite the disposition of the civil and criminal caseloads of the United States district courts. In 1979, Congress expanded federal magistrates' authority to include all misdemeanors recognized by the federal criminal code. Magistrates' titles changed again in 1990, when they became "magistrate judges," symbolizing the ever-increasing importance of their work. The system has worked relatively well in the last 30 years, and has tended
United States magistrate judge
5385005
the "essential attributes of judicial power" stay in Article III courts. This power derives from two sources. First, when Congress "creates" rights, it can require those asserting such rights to go through an Article I tribunal. Second, Congress can create non-Article III tribunals to help Article III courts deal with their workload, but only if the Article I tribunals are under the control of the Article III courts. The bankruptcy courts, as well as the tribunals of magistrate judges who decide some issues in the district courts, fall within this category of "adjunct" tribunals. All actions heard in an Article
Federal tribunals in the United States
62856
where there was no express grant of authority from Congress or the Constitution. In 1938, the U.S. Supreme Court in "Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins" 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938), overruled earlier precedent, and held "There is no federal general common law," thus confining the federal courts to act only as interpreters of law originating elsewhere. "E.g.", "Texas Industries v. Radcliff", (without an express grant of statutory authority, federal courts cannot create rules of intuitive justice, for example, a right to contribution from co-conspirators). Post-1938, federal courts deciding issues that arise under state law are required to defer to state
Common law
4776922
corpus. Federal judiciary of the United States The federal judiciary of the United States is one of the three branches of the federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government. Article III of the Constitution requires the establishment of a Supreme Court and permits the Congress to create other federal courts, and place limitations on their jurisdiction. Article III federal judges are appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate to serve until they resign, are impeached and convicted, retire or die. The federal courts are composed of
Federal judiciary of the United States
4776909
Federal judiciary of the United States The federal judiciary of the United States is one of the three branches of the federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government. Article III of the Constitution requires the establishment of a Supreme Court and permits the Congress to create other federal courts, and place limitations on their jurisdiction. Article III federal judges are appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate to serve until they resign, are impeached and convicted, retire or die. The federal courts are composed of three
Federal judiciary of the United States
7388028
circuit court was divided on whether it could exercise common law jurisdiction over such cases. Justice William Johnson, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court. He first explained that the federal government is one of limited powers, as set forth in the Constitution. Furthermore, only the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was explicitly defined in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Since the lower federal courts were created by Congress with the Judiciary Act of 1789, their jurisdiction had to be defined by Congress. Therefore, the Court reasoned that since Congress has the power to create such courts, the principles
United States v. Hudson
9115231
Jurisdiction stripping In the United States, jurisdiction-stripping (also called court-stripping or curtailment-of-jurisdiction), is the limiting or reducing of a court's jurisdiction by Congress through its constitutional authority to determine the jurisdiction of federal and state courts. Congress may define the jurisdiction of the judiciary through the simultaneous use of two powers. First, Congress holds the power to create (and, implicitly, to define the jurisdiction of) federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court (i.e. Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and various other Article I and Article III tribunals). This court-creating power is granted both in the congressional powers clause (Art. I,
Jurisdiction stripping
4022625
Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." This passage has been historically interpreted to mean that the right of habeas corpus is inherently established. Gonzales dissents from the consensus view, siding with Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, who said "[a]though the Constitution prohibits Congress from suspending the writ of habeas corpus except during times of rebellion or invasion, this provision was probably meant to keep Congress from suspending the writ and preventing state courts from releasing individuals who were wrongfully imprisoned. The constitutional provision does not create a right to habeas corpus; rather federal statutes [do so]." Additionally, "the Constitutional
Alberto Gonzales
2018828
Barnett has indicated that federal courts had such authority and that enumerated rights "had the same stature and force" in the district even before they were enumerated. He has indicated that the case of "Bolling v. Sharpe" (dealing with integration of public schools in the District of Columbia) is hard to justify textually from the Constitution, and if it were to be overturned, Congress would create more laws desegregating the district, which would be justified in his view of the Constitution. The question of what constitutional rights citizens possessed in the federal district has ramifications for the meaning of the
Randy Barnett
4883915
$75,000 in 1996. The use of the word "exceeds" in Section 1332 implies that the amount in controversy must be more than $75,000; a case removed from state court to federal court must be remanded back to state court if the amount in controversy is exactly $75,000.00. Congress did not create a consistent federal question jurisdiction, which allows federal courts to hear any case alleging a violation of the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, until 1875, when Congress created the statute which is now found at : "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
Amount in controversy
6165073
shared with their psychologists could still be revealed to the world in federal courts housed across the street from the courts of their own states. Second, the proposed draft of the Federal Rules of Evidence included nine specific privileges, one of which was a psychotherapist-patient privilege. In the past, the Court had rejected an attempt to create a state legislative privilege within the Federal Rules of Evidence because that privilege was not included in the draft version of the Rules. When it rejected the draft including specific privileges, Congress did not specifically intend to reject the individual privileges. It simply
Jaffee v. Redmond
4770673
case under this doctrine. Typically, such factors include: The "Rooker-Feldman" doctrine has some characteristics of an abstention doctrine, because it prohibits federal court review of state court actions. However, it does not require federal courts to abstain from hearing cases pending action in the state court, but instead deems that federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear cases already fully decided in state courts. The doctrine is not a judicially created exception to federal jurisdiction. Rather, the Rooker and Feldman cases simply recognized the fact that Congress has not granted the federal district or appeals courts statutory jurisdiction to consider appeals
Abstention doctrine
4936030
Congress had intended to create a private right of action to enforce the law, that such a right of action was consistent with the remedial purpose Congress had in mind, and that discrimination was a matter of traditionally federal and not state concern. Justice Powell, however, dissented and criticized the Court's approach to implied rights of action, which he said was incompatible with the doctrine of separation of powers. It was the job of Congress, not the federal courts, Justice Powell said, to create causes of action. Therefore, the only appropriate analysis was whether Congress intended to create a private
Implied cause of action
5385004
the original U.S. bankruptcy courts. The Court noted in that opinion that the framers of the Constitution had developed a scheme of separation of powers which clearly required that the judiciary be kept independent of the other two branches via the mechanism of lifetime appointments. This decision was subsequently revisited and affirmed in "Stern v. Marshall", 564 U.S. 462 (2011). However, the Court noted three situations (based on historical understanding) in which Congress could give judicial power to non-Article III courts: The Court also found that Congress has the power under Article I to create "adjunct tribunals", so long as
Federal tribunals in the United States
428103
that is explicitly established by the Constitution. During the Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made for the Supreme Court to be the only federal court, having both original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. This proposal was rejected in favor of the provision that exists today. Under this provision, the Congress may create inferior (i.e., lower) courts under both Article III, Section 1, and Article I, Section 8. The Article III courts, which are also known as "constitutional courts", were first created by the Judiciary Act of 1789, and are the only courts with judicial power. Article I courts, which are also
Article Three of the United States Constitution
4776910
levels of courts. They are listed below. The United States district courts (one in each of the 94 federal judicial districts, as well three territorial courts) are general federal trial courts, although in many cases Congress has diverted original jurisdiction to specialized courts, such as the Court of International Trade, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, or to Article I or Article IV tribunals. The district courts usually have jurisdiction to hear appeals from such tribunals (unless, for example, appeals are to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.) The United States courts of appeals
Federal judiciary of the United States
9115245
need not give this Court any appellate power; it may withdraw appellate jurisdiction once conferred." More recent examples of jurisdiction stripping include the following: There have also been hundreds of unsuccessful bills in Congress to strip federal courts of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction stripping In the United States, jurisdiction-stripping (also called court-stripping or curtailment-of-jurisdiction), is the limiting or reducing of a court's jurisdiction by Congress through its constitutional authority to determine the jurisdiction of federal and state courts. Congress may define the jurisdiction of the judiciary through the simultaneous use of two powers. First, Congress holds the power to create (and, implicitly,
Jurisdiction stripping
4291531
Governor Bank President Benjamin Strong, convinced Congress to modify its powers, giving it the ability to both create money, as the 1913 Act intended, and destroy money, as a central bank could. During the 1920s, the Federal Reserve experimented with a number of approaches, alternatively creating and then destroying money which, in the eyes of Milton Friedman, helped create the late-1920s stock market bubble. After Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in 1933, the Federal Reserve was subordinated to the Executive Branch, where it remained until 1951, when the Federal Reserve and the Treasury department signed an accord granting the Federal
History of central banking in the United States
4770674
of state court decisions, only the US Supreme Court via a writ of "certiorari"). It is an open question whether Congress could grant such jurisdiction. No national rule requires state courts to abstain from hearing cases brought in federal courts or in courts of other states, though the All Writs Act permits federal courts to enjoin state courts from hearing matters if necessary to preserve the jurisdiction of the federal court. But every state has some doctrine that lets its courts stay actions to avoid duplicative litigation. Some states have doctrines that let state courts abstain from hearing cases already
Abstention doctrine
5182363
to declare and create binding law in commercial matters, such as bills and notes and torts such as negligence and business interference. This was under the doctrine of "Swift v. Tyson", 41 U.S. 1 (1842), which had held that the federal courts, when deciding matters not specifically addressed by the state legislature, had the authority to develop a federal common law. In 1938, in "Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins", 304 U.S. 64 (1938), the Supreme Court overruled "Swift v. Tyson". As Justice Brandeis wrote: Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a state whether
International News Service v. Associated Press
4776318
the action was filed. This decision overturned precedents that had held that federal courts could create a general federal common law, instead of applying the law of the forum state. This decision was an interpretation of the word "laws" in 28 U.S.C. 1652, known as the Rules of Decision Act. Under the Rules of Decision Act, the laws of the several states, except where the constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where
Diversity jurisdiction
16502424
Scholars are divided on whether Johnson referred to Justice Chase or Justice Cushing. Prof. Freedman has argued that "Bollman" erred in applying § 14's proviso to both courts and individual judges (as opposed to only individual judges) and thus that the Judiciary Act of 1789 did confer federal courts the power to grant writs of habeas corpus to state prisoners. The Reconstruction-era Congress granted federal courts this power in 1867. In "Ex parte Kearney" (1822), the Court denied the writ to a prisoner who was imprisoned for criminal contempt. In an opinion by Justice Story, the Court's reasoning reached far
Criminal law in the Marshall Court
3540411
conflict, federal law prevails. The authority over the judicial system in Canada is divided between Parliament and the provincial Legislatures. Section 101 gives Parliament power to create a "general court of appeal for Canada" and "additional Courts for the better Administration of the Laws of Canada". Parliament has used this power to create the Supreme Court of Canada and lower federal courts. It has created the Supreme Court under both branches of s. 101. The lower federal courts, such as the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Tax Court of Canada and the Court Martial Appeal Court of
Constitution Act, 1867
6710377
no reverse "removal". That is, if a case originates in a federal court, there is no ability for a defendant to remove a case from federal court into state court. If the federal court lacks jurisdiction, the case is dismissed. Only cases that originate in a state court and are improperly removed to a federal court may be sent back to the state court where they started. A defendant can waive the right to remove by contract, although courts take different positions about what language is necessary to create a waiver. Remand orders are not generally appealable , but may
Removal jurisdiction
4776576
In turn, allowing federal courts to make up their "own" independent judge-made law only made the problem worse. Parties who felt disadvantaged by a state judge-made rule could create diversity jurisdiction in the federal courts by simply moving to another state or reincorporating there (if a party was a corporation). In the worst cases a party who had lost in the state supreme court would simply begin all over again in federal courts; since the federal district court had its "own" set of common law rules, it could hold it was not bound by the state supreme court ruling. This
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
11252519
of the lack of uniformity in court interpretations of federal tax law has been to create a national court of tax appeals. Indeed, a federal court of tax appeals appears to be the favored view of many academics who address the subject and some tax attorneys. Under the approaches advocated, tax litigation could begin in the courts of original jurisdiction, as is currently the case, but the appeals would have to be made to a single, specialized court of tax appeals which would develop great expertise on tax law as well as reconcile divergent interpretations from the lower courts so
Uniformity and jurisdiction in U.S. federal court tax decisions
62857
court interpretations of state statutes, or reason what a state's highest court would rule if presented with the issue, or to certify the question to the state's highest court for resolution. Later courts have limited "Erie" slightly, to create a few situations where United States federal courts are permitted to create federal common law rules without express statutory authority, for example, where a federal rule of decision is necessary to protect uniquely federal interests, such as foreign affairs, or financial instruments issued by the federal government. "See, e.g.", "Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States", (giving federal courts the authority to
Common law
14610762
Although federal courts can create federal common law in the form of case law, such law must be linked one way or another to the interpretation of a particular federal constitutional provision, statute, or regulation (which in turn was enacted as part of the Constitution or after). Federal courts lack the plenary power possessed by state courts to simply make up law, which the latter are able to do in the absence of constitutional or statutory provisions replacing the common law. Only in a few narrow limited areas, like maritime law, has the Constitution expressly authorized the continuation of English
Law of the United States
12008926
until 20 August 1946. In 2002 and 2009 the German Bundestag parliament has finally passed bills to suspend the verdicts against Wehrmacht for desertion and homosexual activity as well as against "war traitors". Since 1949, the Federal Republic of Germany has no special military courts. Criminal acts committed by soldiers are tried in ordinary criminal courts by civilian judges. Article 96 paragraph 2 of German Basic Law ("Grundgesetz") allows the government to create specialised military courts in case of war and for soldiers sent abroad, subject to a federal law. Such a law has not been passed. Smaller offences are
German military law
788078
United States courts of appeals The United States courts of appeals or circuit courts are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal court system. A court of appeals decides appeals from the district courts within its federal judicial circuit, and in some instances from other designated federal courts and administrative agencies. The United States courts of appeals are considered among the most powerful and influential courts in the United States. Because of their ability to set legal precedent in regions that cover millions of Americans, the United States courts of appeals have strong policy influence on U.S. law.
United States courts of appeals
13410953
be decided by the court unless the plaintiff demands a jury on the damages claim. A defendant who has defaulted may still appear at the damages hearing to contest the amount of damages, but can not challenge liability. Summary judgment is rarely granted in Virginia courts because it is easy for either party to raise a triable issue of fact. Unlike federal courts, where claims must be accompanied by an affidavit in order to raise a fact issue, Virginia courts treat the pleadings themselves as allegations of fact sufficient to create a genuine issue for resolution by a trial. Summary
Virginia Circuit Court
17140862
Courts as well as a number of Australian artists including PVT, The Jungle Giants, Gung Ho and Patrick James. Create/Control Create/Control is an independent record label based in Brisbane and Sydney, Australia. Create/Control was founded by Paul Piticco. Create/Control is a record label for artists who have the ability to create their own recordings without label funding who will then use the label for distribution, promotion and marketing. Artists signed to the Create/Control label own 100% ownership and copyright of their work. In 2013 Create/Control partnered with record labels from Canada and the United States to release each other's recordings.
Create/Control
4729236
when their health has been compromised." Critics charge that this bill makes it far more difficult to bring class action suits, and may prolong such litigation, clogging the federal courts' dockets. The act also gives the federal government some ability to control, through judicial appointments, outcomes that were previously under state control. Critics argue that the expansion of federal jurisdiction comes at the expense of state's rights and federalism, something that Republicans have historically protested; however, proponents respond that the bill is consistent with the founders' original intent for the role of federal courts and diversity jurisdiction expressed by Alexander
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
12248661
armed forces rests with the government. Chapter III sets up the judicial branch of government; its provisions create the federal judicature and define the way it operates. Section 71 vests judicial power in a "Federal Supreme Court" to be called the High Court of Australia, and such other federal courts as Parliament creates, and in such other courts as Parliament invests with federal jurisdiction. Such courts are called "Chapter III Courts" and are the only courts that can exercise federal judicial power. Sections 73 and 75–78 outline the original and appellate jurisdiction of the High Court. Section 74 provides for
Constitution of Australia
90464
as the plaintiff. However, Rule 23 also provides for defendant class actions. Typically, federal courts are thought to be more favorable for defendants, and state courts more favorable for plaintiffs. Many class actions are filed initially in state court. The defendant will frequently try to remove the case to federal court. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 increases defendants' ability to remove state cases to federal court by giving federal courts original jurisdiction for all class actions with damages exceeding $5,000,000 exclusive of interest and costs. It should be noted, however, that the Class Action Fairness Act contains carve-outs
Class action
1998031
the "Constitution Act, 1867", the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures both have the constitutional authority to create courts: Parliament under s. 101, and the Provinces under s. 92(14). However, the federal power to create courts is much more limited than the provincial power. The provincial courts have a much more extensive jurisdiction, including the constitutionally entrenched power to determine constitutional issues. The Supreme Court of Canada () is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeal in the Canadian justice system. Parliament created it by Act of Parliament in 1875, as a "general court of
Law of Canada
4776584
can certify questions to state supreme courts, but other states allow only federal courts of appeal (circuit) courts to do so. In the latter situation, an "Erie" guess would be the only option available for the federal court attempting to apply state law. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that federal courts did not have the judicial power to create general federal common law when hearing state law claims under diversity jurisdiction. In reaching this
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
4776314
required keeping that litigation in the courts most experienced to handle it. However, federal courts are not limited in their ability to hear tort cases arising out of domestic situations by the doctrine. A similar exception has been recognized for probate and decedent's estate litigation, which continues to hold for the primary cases; diversity jurisdiction does not exist to probate wills or administer decedent's estates directly. Diversity jurisdiction is allowed for some litigation that arises under trusts and other estate planning documents, however. If a case is originally filed in a state court, and the requirements for federal jurisdiction are
Diversity jurisdiction
3540407
in civil matters in both courts". This provision allows the provinces to create the courts of criminal jurisdiction and to create provincial police forces such as the OPP and the Sûreté du Québec (SQ). As a matter of policy dating back to Confederation, the federal government has delegated the prosecutorial function for almost all criminal offences to the provincial Attorneys General. Crown Prosecutors appointed under provincial law thus prosecute almost all Criminal Code offences across Canada. Section 91(28) gives Parliament exclusive power over "penitentiaries" while section 92(6) gives the provinces power over the "prisons". This means that offenders sentenced to
Constitution Act, 1867
12134022
February 21, 1986, President Ronald Reagan nominated Manion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, to a seat vacated by Judge Wilbur Frank Pell, Jr. In a radio address to the nation, President Reagan stated, "I know [Daniel Manion] to be a person who has the ability and determination to become the kind of judge the American people want in the federal courts; one who believes in the rule of law, who reveres the Constitution, and whose sense of fairness and justice is above reproach." The ABA rated Manion "qualified/unqualified." The nomination was controversial, but Manion
Daniel Anthony Manion
4157645
senior ministers, and informally called the Cabinet. In practice, executive power is exercised by the Premier of Tasmania and the Cabinet, who are appointed by the Governor, but who hold office by virtue of their ability to command the support of a majority of members of the House of Assembly. Judicial power is exercised by the Supreme Court of Tasmania and a system of subordinate courts, but the High Court of Australia and other federal courts have overriding jurisdiction on matters which fall under the ambit of the Australian Constitution. The current ministry of Tasmania is the Second Hodgman Ministry,
Government of Tasmania
13459433
executive orders etc.). Judicial review in Switzerland Article 190 of the Swiss Federal Constitution states that federal statutes and international law are binding on the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. In consequence, the courts are not empowered to review the constitutionality of federal statutes, but will, where possible, construe statutes so as not to create a conflict with the Constitution. The courts can suspend the application of federal statutes that conflict with international law, but tend to exercise this power cautiously and deferentially: In "Schubert" (BGE 99 Ib 39), the Federal Supreme Court refused to do so because Parliament had consciously
Judicial review in Switzerland
13459431
Judicial review in Switzerland Article 190 of the Swiss Federal Constitution states that federal statutes and international law are binding on the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. In consequence, the courts are not empowered to review the constitutionality of federal statutes, but will, where possible, construe statutes so as not to create a conflict with the Constitution. The courts can suspend the application of federal statutes that conflict with international law, but tend to exercise this power cautiously and deferentially: In "Schubert" (BGE 99 Ib 39), the Federal Supreme Court refused to do so because Parliament had consciously violated international law
Judicial review in Switzerland
4157641
by the premier of South Australia and the cabinet, who are appointed by the governor, but who hold office by virtue of their ability to command the support of a majority of members of the House of Assembly. Judicial power is exercised by the Supreme Court of South Australia and a system of subordinate courts, but the High Court of Australia and other federal courts have overriding jurisdiction on matters which fall under the ambit of the Australian constitution. The current ministry of the South Australian Government comprises the following Liberal members: The South Australian Government delivers services, determines policy
Government of South Australia
18545985
Public defender (United States) In the United States, a public defender is an attorney-at-law appointed by the courts and provided by the state or federal governments to represent and advise those who cannot afford to hire a private attorney."" Public defenders are full time attorneys employed by the state or federal governments. The public defender program is one of several types of criminal legal aid in the United States. Prior to the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, legal aid was only accessible by those who had the ability to pay. During that time, people who were not able
Public defender (United States)
4386382
in Texas serving in federal appeals courts, state appeals courts, federal and state trial courts. His accomplishments as an attorney earned him recognition such as: Named one of Texas’ Super Lawyers by Texas Monthly in 2003, 2004, and 2005; http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/courts/entries/2008/07/16/david_lee_powell_cop_killer_lo.html?cxntfid=blogs_austin_legal Named in Best Lawyers in America since 1986, by survey of fellow attorneys; Rated AV by Martindale-Hubbell, the highest possible evaluation in legal ability and professional ethics, by survey of fellow attorneys; Member, College of the State Bar of Texas Fellow, Texas Bar Foundation; Van Os served as general counsel for the Texas AFL-CIO from 1983 to 1989 and was
David Van Os
4755831
the Germans. Royall said that Roosevelt had no right to create a military tribunal to try his clients, citing "Ex parte Milligan" (1866), a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not establish military tribunals to try civilians in areas where civilian courts were functioning, even during wartime. Since civilian courts were functioning in Washington D.C., he argued that the case involving the Germans should be heard there. Attorney General Francis Biddle, who was appointed as a prosecutor of the case, responded that the clients who, acting on behalf of the German government, secretly
Ex parte Quirin
14852695
to require federal, not state, courts to respect arbitration agreements." She traced the majority's misreading to first "Erie Railroad v. Tompkins" and its holding that the courts could not create substantive law. Then, in "Bernhardt", the court found that at least in diversity cases state law was controlling on arbitration clauses. "Prima Paint", in her view, resolved concerns that "Bernhardt" problematized the FAA's constitutionality in such cases, but carefully avoided the question of whether it could be applied to state courts as well. "Today's case is the first in which this Court has had occasion to determine whether the FAA
Southland Corp. v. Keating
12009064
Federal courts (Germany) In Germany, federal courts ("Bundesgerichte", singular "Bundesgericht") are courts which are established by federal law. According to article 92 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, the judiciary power is exercised by the Federal Constitutional Court, the federal courts provided for in the Basic Law, and the courts of the Länder (Landesgerichte). The federal courts are: It is also possible to establish "military criminal courts" for exercising criminal jurisdiction during a state of defence or over members of the Bundeswehr serving abroad, however the federal legislature has so far not done so. A ""
Federal courts (Germany)
5374182
to ineffective baseline results. At higher levels, the all-court player or aggressive baseliner is usually able to execute winners with higher velocity and better placement, taking the counterpuncher out of the point as early as possible. Most counter-punchers often excel on slow courts, such as clay. The court gives them extra time to chase down shots and it is harder for opponents to create winners. However, some counter-punchers who have the ability to mix up their game and turn defense into offense, like Lleyton Hewitt, Andy Murray and Agnieszka Radwanska have excelled on faster courts like hard and grass as
Tennis strategy
14319552
able to approve agreements for individuals who may be beneficiaries under protective trusts, with no requirement that the alterations be for their benefit. The courts have interpreted the Act's scope fairly widely, stating that almost any "variation" is acceptable, and that "benefit" may mean not just a financial benefit, but also a social or moral one. Despite initial fears that it would allow tax planners another way to hide funds and create a back-and-forth fight between the Chancery Division and Parliament, the Act was met with general approval. The ability of the courts to alter trustees' investment powers under the
Variation of Trusts Act 1958
442480
vested with the power to enact and apply laws relating to the administration of justice within its own territory. In Canada, Section 40 of the "Federal Court Act" and in Ontario Section 140 of the "Courts of Justice Act", restrict the ability to introduce or continue proceedings for those who have instituted vexatious proceedings or conducted proceedings in a vexatious manner. In Quebec, the Code of Civil Procedure is the principal legislation that sets rules related to civil procedure. Under section 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure, all judicial courts and judges in Quebec are vested with "...all the
Vexatious litigation
14852700
Fortas's majority opinion in that case, she noted. O'Connor also objected to the majority's insistence that state courts rigorously follow the federal procedures in enforcing the FAA. "Assuming, to the contrary, that § 2 does create a federal right that the state courts must enforce, state courts should nonetheless be allowed, at least in the first instance, to fashion their own procedures for enforcing the right. Unfortunately, the Court seems to direct that the arbitration clause at issue here must be specifically enforced; apparently no other means of enforcement is permissible." Even if she had agreed that the FAA applied
Southland Corp. v. Keating
4776565
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that federal courts did not have the judicial power to create general federal common law when hearing state law claims under diversity jurisdiction. In reaching this holding, the Court overturned almost a century of federal civil procedure case law, and established the foundation of what remains the modern law of diversity jurisdiction as it applies to United States federal courts. "Erie" began as a simple personal injury case when
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
6736186
Judges of the Courts of Justice overview one another. A Court can expel any judge who has displayed unethical behavior. Regional Federal Courts (in number of 5) have jurisdiction over circuits of several states and tend to be headquartered in the largest city of their territory. The regional courts are: There are two national superior courts making up the Supreme Court, which grant writs of certiorari in civil and criminal cases: the Superior Court of Justice ("Superior Tribunal de Justiça" in Portuguese) or STJ and the Supreme Federal Court ("Supremo Tribunal Federal" in Portuguese) or STF, the highest Brazilian court
Law of Brazil
12851753
morality, maturity, demeanor, temperament, and ability to work with others. Applicants for the post must be personally interviewed and recommended for the position. Magistrate judges are compensated at a slightly lower scale than district judges and do not benefit from the full array of benefits accorded to district judges, so increased magistrate judge involvement in judicial matters has a cost-savings effect for the federal courts. A number of states have judges titled as magistrates. These positions are unrelated to the federal office, and function according to the laws of the specific state. United States magistrate judge In United States federal
United States magistrate judge
433342
because the courts must wait, sometimes for years, for cases to navigate their way through the system, their ability to restrain other branches is severely weakened. In contrast, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany for example, can directly declare a law unconstitutional upon request. There has been debate throughout American history about the boundary between federal and state power. While Framers such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton argued in "The Federalist Papers" that their then-proposed Constitution would not infringe on the power of state governments, others argue that expansive federal power is good and consistent with the Framers' wishes.
Supreme Court of the United States
16137751
which has been cited with approval by several Canadian courts, has drawn a distinction between the two. Under the "Constitution Act 1867", the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to most areas of intellectual property such as patents, trademarks and copyrights; whereas the provincial government has exclusive authority to legislate on matters related to property and civil rights. The federal Parliament also has exclusive jurisdiction to create offences under its criminal law power. At one time, the federal "Trade-marks Act" prohibited anyone from "do[ing] any other act or adopt[ing] any other business practice contrary to honest industrial
Trade secrets in Canada
1387740
an obligation to do one thing but does another, his action may be treated as close enough approximation of the required act. A claimant who has undertaken an obligation, will, through his later conduct be interpreted as fulfilment of that obligation. In England, there was a distinction drawn between the jurisdiction of the law courts and that of the chancery court. Courts of law had jurisdiction over property as well as persons and their coercive power arose out of their ability to adjust ownership rights. Courts of equity had power over persons. Their coercive power arose from the ability, on
Maxims of equity
7546095
combination of federal and state law issues, by the very nature of its proceedings. Since federal courts only rarely hear state law claims, having bankruptcy courts adjudicate these issues really would not intrude on the powers of Article III courts very much. White accused the court of ignoring the complex realities of bankruptcy law in favor of its own theory of separation of powers. White also felt that the plurality incorrectly defined the "Crowell" and "Raddatz" cases as the outer limits of Congressional authority to create non-Article III tribunals, and ignored both prior bankruptcy and administrative law practice. He noted
Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.
8097653
laws for a territory under section 122 of the Constitution and thus did not decide whether detention was a judicial power. Brennan CJ held that the territories were not part of the federal system that involved the distribution of powers between the Commonwealth and the States. Dawson J, McHugh J agreeing, held that section 122 of the Constitution permitted the Parliament to create courts that were not federal courts and not exercising federal jurisdiction. Dawson J doubted that the actions were of a judicial rather than an executive character. Toohey, Gaudron and Gummow JJ held that the removal of Indigenous
Kruger v Commonwealth
16509872
people who were the most invested in the outcome of the project, in a more substantial way than public authorities, anonymous federal agencies, or even the designers, were given a say in shaping the neighborhood. They were also the possessors of unique insights into the problems and solutions for the neighborhood, and their input would certainly help to create a more successful project for all parties involved. One example of this is that a concern about safe parking expressed in charettes led to the creation of blocks with interior parking courts. These courts - which became elevated above grade in
The New Faubourg Lafitte
18011876
to prepare a report each year on the amount of fees and other expenses awarded by federal courts to nonfederal entities when they prevail in a case against the United States. The bill also would require the ACUS to create an online searchable database containing information about cases in which fees and expenses were awarded by courts or federal agencies. The ACUS is an independent agency that assists other agencies of the federal government in improving regulatory and other administrative procedures. Based on information from the ACUS, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that implementing H.R. 2919 would cost about
Open Book on Equal Access to Justice Act
5081269
court the authority to create an Office of Special Masters to receive and hear certain vaccine injury cases, and the jurisdiction to review those cases. This vaccine injury jurisdiction has been enlarged in recent years to encompass claims stemming from a number of additional vaccines, including, for example, varicella, hepatitis B, and influenza. Though a provision of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 gave the Court of Federal Claims and U.S. districts courts concurrent jurisdiction over post-award protests, subsequent legislation provided that, as of January 2001, that the United States Court of Federal Claims would be the exclusive judicial
United States Court of Federal Claims
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
16502405
a right to bail in non-capital cases, and authorized bail in capital cases—by the district courts, circuit courts, and Supreme Court, or any individual judge of them—issued on an "exercise their discretion therein, regarding the nature and circumstances of the offence, and of the evidence, and the usages of law." The 1789 act did not create federal prisons, but it did provide for the imprisonment of federal prisoners (presumably in state prisons) "at the expense of the United States." Many of the substantive federal crimes during this period were created by two omnibus pieces of legislation: the Crimes Act of
Criminal law in the Marshall Court
1602849
plaintiff and a citizen of another state the defendant. The power of the federal courts extends both to civil actions for damages and other redress, and to criminal cases arising under federal law. The interplay of the Supremacy Clause and Article III has resulted in a complex set of relationships between state and federal courts. Federal courts can sometimes hear cases arising under state law pursuant to diversity jurisdiction, state courts can decide certain matters involving federal law, and a handful of federal claims are primarily reserved by federal statute to the state courts (for example, those arising from the
Federal government of the United States
2026399
as a means of restoring Hawaiian self-determination lost with the 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and would include giving up the ability to sue for sovereignty in federal courts in exchange for recognition by the federal government (but would not block sovereignty claims made under international law.) The bill has been criticized as discriminating on the basis on ethnic origin in that only Native Hawaiians would be permitted to participate in the governing entity that the bill would establish. In April 2006, he was selected by "Time" as one of America's Five Worst Senators. The article criticized him
Daniel Akaka
17785026
The main tenants of the building are the United States District and Bankruptcy Courts, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the United States Attorney, United States Probation and Pretrial Services, United States Marshals, Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration, Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Labor. John F. Seiberling Federal Building and United States Courthouse The John F. Seiberling Federal Building and United States Courthouse is a building located in downtown Akron, Ohio. The building is named after John F. Seiberling, a United States Representative from Ohio who helped create the Cuyahoga Valley National Park and served on the House
John F. Seiberling Federal Building and United States Courthouse
18532383
their ability to adjust jail sentences handed down in criminal cases, "giving them the impression of a lower, less serious court." This limited the amount of time that tribal courts could sentence defendants to incarceration, including those charged with violence against women. The act ultimately allows for tribes to hold criminals accountable for their actions, and allows for reservation crimes to be prosecuted in Federal courts. Increased communication between tribal justice systems, federal authorities and the court system are to be put in place. In addition to the act's aims towards prosecution, it also creates provisions for crime prevention, including
Native American policy of the Barack Obama administration
11504534
permit the Pledge to be illegally recited. Mark J. Pelavin, Associate Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, objected to court stripping in regards to the Pledge of Allegiance: Today's House adoption of the so-called 'Pledge Protection Act' is a shameful effort to strip our federal courts of their ability to uphold the rights of all Americans. By removing the jurisdiction of federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from cases involving the Pledge, this legislation sets a dangerous precedent: threatening religious liberty, compromising the vital system of checks and balances upon which our government was founded, and granting
Pledge Protection Act
4531044
a superior court that has "general" jurisdiction; that is, it is competent to hear any case over which no other state court has exclusive jurisdiction. Because the United States federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over a very small percentage of cases, such as copyright disputes, patent disputes, and United States bankruptcy court disputes, state courts have the authority to hear the vast majority of cases. Subject-matter jurisdiction is significantly more limited in United States federal courts. The maximal constitutional bounds of federal courts' subject-matter jurisdiction are defined by Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Federal courts' actual subject-matter
Subject-matter jurisdiction
19052254
by refugee tribunals and the Federal Court of Australia. As with the United States, judges have considerable interpretive latitude and decisions create precedents for further decisions. One of the distinguishing features of the PSG definition in Australia has been the "discretion" requirement, particularly in connection with sexuality. While the Australian courts have generally accepted that if somebody needs to hide his or her political or religious beliefs in order be free from persecution, that itself counts as persecution, the same logic was not applied to homosexuality or other non-standard sexual orientations. The courts have upheld the view that sexuality is
Particular social group
4177612
courts created by the Federal Parliament, including the Federal Court of Australia, the Family Court of Australia, and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Additionally, unlike in the United States, the federal legislature has the power to enact laws which vest federal jurisdiction in State courts. Since the Australian Constitution requires a separation of powers at the federal level, only courts may exercise federal judicial power; and conversely, non-judicial functions cannot be vested in courts. State judicial power is exercised by each State's Supreme Court, and such other courts and tribunals created by the State Parliaments. The High Court is
Government of Australia
19280750
legislative supremacy more firmly. The Republican Party has supported various bills within the last decade to strip some or all federal courts of the ability to hear certain types of cases, in an attempt to strengthen the power of individual state's rights. These jurisdiction stripping laws have included removing federal review of the recognition of same-sex marriage with the Marriage Protection Act, the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance with the Pledge Protection Act, and the rights of detainees in Guantanamo Bay in the Detainee Treatment Act. The Supreme Court overruled the last of these limitations in "Hamdan v. Rumsfeld".
Political positions of the Republican Party
13529766
Jimenez v. Quarterman Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113 (2009), was a decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), the conviction of a state defendant is not "final" if a state court grants an "out-of-time" appeal and the defendant has not yet filed a federal habeas petition. In 1996 the United States enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which among other provisions set strict limits on the ability of criminal defendants convicted in state courts to file a federal appeal. Under , an appeal had to be filed
Jimenez v. Quarterman
10258779
Hettinger, Berg's hometown. Berg has voted to curtail EPA regulations, stating: "In North Dakota, we know the damaging effects that overreaching government regulations can have on our small businesses and their ability to create jobs." He has also proposed drilling for oil in federal lands, including North Dakota's own Theodore Roosevelt National Park, as a way to provide funding for Social Security. In 2009, he was presented with the Greater North Dakotan Award by the North Dakota Chamber of Commerce for his support of business interests. Berg is pro-life and has voted to prohibit federal funds from being used for
Rick Berg
220160
or "court of limited jurisdiction". A court whose subject matter is not limited to certain types of controversy is referred to as a "court of general jurisdiction". In the U.S. states, each state has courts of general jurisdiction; most states also have some courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal courts (those operated by the federal government) are courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction is divided into federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. The United States district courts may hear only cases arising under federal law and treaties, cases involving ambassadors, admiralty cases, controversies between states or between a state and citizens
Jurisdiction
3918164
held that employers could force workers to not belong to labor unions, that a minimum wage for women and children was void, that states could not ban employment agencies charging fees for work, that workers could not strike in solidarity with colleagues of other firms, and even that the federal government could not ban child labor. It also imprisoned socialist activists, who opposed the fighting in World War One, meaning that Eugene Debs ran as the Socialist Party's candidate for President in 1920 from prison. Critically, the courts held state and federal attempts to create social security to be unconstitutional.
United States labor law
8840891
ordered to pay the defendants' $1.75 million in attorneys' fees. The "American rule" differs; in most cases, each party bears its own expense of litigation. Supporters of tort reform argue that loser-pays rules are fairer, would compensate winners of lawsuits against the costs of litigation, would deter marginal lawsuits and tactical litigation, and would create proper incentives for litigation, and argue for reforms that would require compensation of winning defendants some or all the time. In federal courts, debate has focused on the scope of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11, which sanctions attorneys in some situations for making
Tort reform
12069582
and other expenses awarded by federal courts to nonfederal entities when they prevail in a case against the United States. The bill would amend the Equal Access to Justice Act. NACo stated that it supported the bill because it "strives to create a balance between ensuring access to courts for individuals, small businesses, and non-profit organizations in suits against the federal government and preventing abuses of the system." According to NACo, the "legislation provides necessary transparency in an effort to stop EAJA abuses," but allows "veterans, social security claimants, individuals, and small businesses" to "still enjoy full access to EAJA
National Association of Counties
5347032
1869 reduced the number to nine once again. The United States Court of Appeals were established by the Judiciary Act of 1891 as "United States circuit courts of appeals" (the name was changed to its current form in 1948). The act authorized 19 appellate judgeships in 9 circuits. Since then, the number of authorized appellate judgeships has increased to 179. As of As of December 11, 2018 Judicial appointment history for United States federal courts The appointment of federal judges for United States federal courts has become viewed as a political process in the last several decades. This is especially
Judicial appointment history for United States federal courts
7394515
Conceptual economy Conceptual economy is a term describing the contribution of creativity, innovation, and design skills to economic competitiveness, especially in the global context. Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, recognized the role of conceptual output as early as 1997 in a speech at the University of Connecticut when he said "The growth of the conceptual component of output has brought with it accelerating demands for workers who are equipped not simply with technical know-how, but with the ability to create, analyze, and transform information and to interact effectively with others." By 2004, he had developed his
Conceptual economy
7394506
Conceptual economy Conceptual economy is a term describing the contribution of creativity, innovation, and design skills to economic competitiveness, especially in the global context. Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, recognized the role of conceptual output as early as 1997 in a speech at the University of Connecticut when he said "The growth of the conceptual component of output has brought with it accelerating demands for workers who are equipped not simply with technical know-how, but with the ability to create, analyze, and transform information and to interact effectively with others." By 2004, he had developed his
Conceptual economy
4815996
Federal common law Federal common law is a term of United States law used to describe common law that is developed by the federal courts, instead of by the courts of the various states. The United States is the only country to combine the creation of common law doctrines with a complete federalism, wherein the national supreme court has virtually no power to review state court decisions to determine whether the state courts have followed state laws. The High Court of Australia is sometimes said to have federal common law, but because all state and territorial courts are directly appealable
Federal common law
1602845
been ignored by the other two branches. Below the U.S. Supreme Court are the United States Courts of Appeals, and below them in turn are the United States District Courts, which are the general trial courts for federal law, and for certain controversies between litigants who are not deemed citizens of the same state ("diversity jurisdiction"). There are three levels of federal courts with "general jurisdiction", meaning that these courts handle criminal cases and civil lawsuits between individuals. Other courts, such as the bankruptcy courts and the Tax Court, are specialized courts handling only certain kinds of cases ("subject matter
Federal government of the United States
4776583
reasoned attempt to anticipate what the state's courts would decide, is not binding on state courts themselves, which may adopt the federal court's reasoning if and when the issue reaches them in some other case, or may decide the issue differently. In the latter case, future federal courts would be required to follow the state's precedents, although a final judgment in the "guessed" case would not be reopened. Alternatively, federal courts can certify questions to a state supreme court, so long as the state itself has a procedure in place to allow this. For example, some federal district (trial) courts
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
10747880
Nels Ackerson Nels Ackerson is a lawyer and head of the law firm that bears his name, based in Washington, D.C. He has represented clients in 46 states and 16 countries on issues involving property rights, constitutional rights, agriculture, eminent domain, commercial and financial disputes, public policy, and international disputes. His law practice has included individual cases, class actions, mediation, appellate advocacy in state and federal courts, regulatory disputes, testimony before congressional committees and state legislatures, and international arbitration. Ackerson has received Martindale-Hubbell's highest rating – AV Premier – for legal ability and ethics. He has been identified by his
Nels Ackerson
4776916
quasi-judicial powers. With limited exceptions, they cannot render final judgments in cases involving life, liberty, and private property rights, but may make preliminary rulings subject to review by an Article III judge. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution as placing some additional restrictions on the federal courts. For example, the doctrines of mootness, ripeness, and standing prohibit district courts from issuing advisory opinions. Other doctrines, such as the abstention doctrine and the "Rooker-Feldman" doctrine limit the power of lower federal courts to disturb rulings made by state courts. The "Erie" doctrine requires federal courts to apply substantive state law
Federal judiciary of the United States
5347030
Judicial appointment history for United States federal courts The appointment of federal judges for United States federal courts has become viewed as a political process in the last several decades. This is especially true of U.S. Supreme Court and court of appeals appointments. The tables below provide the composition of the Supreme and circuit courts at the end of each four year presidential term, categorizing the judges by the presidential term during which they were nominated for their seat. As of December 11, 2018, of the thirteen federal appeals courts excluding vacancies, Democratic appointees have a majority on seven, Republican
Judicial appointment history for United States federal courts
16076415
societies and the Èkpè and Okónkò of Igboland and Ibibioland. Sharia Law "(also known as Islamic Law)" is used only in Northern Nigeria, where Islam is the predominant religion. The country has a judicial branch, the highest court of which is the Supreme Court of Nigeria. The Nigerian constitution recognizes courts as either Federal or State courts. A primary difference between both is that the President appoints Justices/Judges to federal courts, while State Governors appoint Judges to state courts. All appointments (federal or state) are based on the recommendations of the National Judicial Council. The Federal courts are: the Supreme
Law of Nigeria
19874594
their chance to claim a violation of his or her Fundamental rights if there is a procedural default on the claim. Some procedural defaults include intentionally waiving their right to make the claim, or not filing the claim in a timely manner. If state courts provide adequate means of challenging federal fundamental errors, then a procedural default may not be appealed to a federal court. However, if state courts do not provide adequate means of challenging the errors, then a federal court has jurisdiction to hear the claim. The Supreme Court held in "Coleman v. Thompson" that a petitioner who
Fundamental error
11252513
and appeals." The debate over appellate jurisdiction on federal tax matters has been focused primarily on two issues: how best to achieve greater uniformity in federal tax decisions and whether the diversity in tax jurisdiction compromises the quality of decisions resolving tax disputes or is a strength of the system. The backdrop for this debate is the fact that four separate sets of federal courts have original jurisdiction over tax cases and appeals from original jurisdiction courts are taken to the thirteen federal courts of appeals. The four sets of courts with original jurisdiction to hear cases brought by taxpayers
Uniformity and jurisdiction in U.S. federal court tax decisions
2761289
"Finanzgerichte" (Finance Courts), and, ultimately, by the Bundesfinanzhof. The "Bundesverwaltungsgericht" has its seat at the former Reichsgericht (Imperial Court of Justice) building in Leipzig. Federal Administrative Court (Germany) The Federal Administrative Court ("Bundesverwaltungsgericht") is one of the five federal supreme courts of Germany. It is the court of the last resort for generally all cases of administrative law, mainly disputes between citizens and the state. It hears appeals from the "Oberverwaltungsgerichte", or Superior Administrative Courts, which, in turn, are the courts of appeals for decisions of the "Verwaltungsgerichte" (Administrative Courts). However, cases concerning social security law belong to the jurisdiction
Federal Administrative Court (Germany)
1922116
the majority of the trial. During a trial, the parties are expected to give all their evidence to the judges, who will then call forward and question the witnesses, after which the defense counsel and prosecutor may question the witnesses. The primary legislation concerning court organization is the Courts Constitution Act (', or '). The courts are characterized by being specialist, regional, and hierarchically integrated at the federal level. There are five basic types of courts, plus the Federal Constitutional Court and the Länder's constitutional courts: The main difference between the Federal Constitutional Court and the Federal Court is that
Judiciary of Germany