Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Additionally, in some areas of substantive law, such as when a court is reviewing a First Amendment issue, an appellate court will use a standard of review called "independent review." [citation needed] The standard is somewhere in between de novo review and clearly erroneous review. Under independent review, an appellate court will reexamine ...
[4] [5] [6] The first is the traditional "direct" appeal in which the appellant files an appeal with the next higher court of review. The second is the collateral appeal or post-conviction petition, in which the petitioner-appellant files the appeal in a court of first instance—usually the court that tried the case.
In 2008, Justice John Paul Stevens reaffirmed this point in a concurring opinion: "[A]s I recall my esteemed former colleague, Thurgood Marshall, remarking on numerous occasions: 'The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.'" [77] In the federal system, courts may only decide actual cases or controversies; it is ...
For example, in the United States, a party can preserve an issue for appeal by raising an objection at trial. Scope of review further relates to matters such as which judicial acts the appellate court can examine and what remedies it can apply. [citation needed] The scope of review for administrative law evolved substantially in the 1970s and ...
In some jurisdictions, a petition for review is a formal request for an appellate tribunal to review the decision of a lower court or administrative body. [1] If a jurisdiction utilizes petitions for review, then parties seeking appellate review of their case may submit a formal petition for review to an appropriate court. [2]
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) Federal courts in diversity jurisdiction cases must apply the law of the states in which they sit, including the judicial doctrine of the state's highest court, where it does not conflict with federal law. There is no general federal common law. Coleman v.
Litigation was filed in federal court challenging the law shortly after it was enacted with final judgement in the Southern District of Illinois federal court issued Nov. 8.
Intermediate scrutiny may be contrasted with "strict scrutiny", the higher standard of review that requires narrowly tailored and least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest, and "rational basis review", a lower standard of review that requires the law or policy be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.