Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
(Scots law, civil law), usually translated as "prior in time, superior in right", the principle that someone who registers (a security interest) earlier therefore ranks higher than other creditors. probatio: Evidence (admissible in a court of law), especially documentary evidence. Types:
Such citations and abbreviations are found in court decisions, statutes, regulations, journal articles, books, and other documents. Below is a basic list of very common abbreviations. Because publishers adopt different practices regarding how abbreviations are printed, one may find abbreviations with or without periods for each letter.
The Court a quo is the court from which a cause has been removed to a higher court, which latter is called the Court ad quem. [2] A vinculo matrimonii. (Lat. from the bond of matrimony) A term descriptive of a kind of divorce, which effects a complete dissolution of the marriage contract. [1] Abactor. l. A cattle-stealer. [3] Abandonment ...
In law, intervention is a procedure to allow a nonparty, called intervenor (also spelled intervener) to join ongoing litigation, either as a matter of right or at the discretion of the court, without the permission of the original litigants.
Concurrent jurisdiction in the United States can also exist between different levels of state courts, and between courts and other government agencies with judicial powers. Different countries can also share concurrent jurisdiction over a case, where different countries have authority over the parties or events giving rise to the cause of action.
There are several mechanisms in public international law whereby the courts of one country (the domestic court) can exercise jurisdiction over a citizen, corporation, or organization of another country (the foreign defendant) to try crimes or civil matters that have affected citizens or businesses within the domestic jurisdiction. Many of these ...
The Supreme Court of the United States delineated the test for the availability of interlocutory appeals, called the collateral order doctrine, for United States federal courts in the case of Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser, [2] holding that under the relevant statute (28 U.S.C. § 1291) such an appeal would be permitted only if:
Justices normally impose an absurdity limit on this rule, which states that a statute cannot be interpreted literally if it would lead to an absurd result. In the US Supreme Court Chung Fook v. White (1924) marked the beginning of the looser American Rule that the intent of the law was more important than its text.