Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The courts have developed an apparent distinction between terms implied "in fact" and those implied "in law". Terms implied "in fact" are said to arise when they are "strictly necessary" to give effect to the "reasonable expectations of the parties". Terms implied "in law" are confined to particular categories of contract, particularly ...
According to Cross, "Interpretation is the process by which the courts determine the meaning of a statutory provision for the purpose of applying it to the situation before them", [6] while Salmond calls it "the process by which the courts seek to ascertain the meaning of the legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is ...
"In any court of this state, any suitor may prosecute or defend his suit either in his own proper person or by an attorney of the suitor's choice." [1] Wyoming: Const Art 1 § 8 "All courts shall be open and every person for an injury done to person, reputation or property shall have justice administered without sale, denial, or delay." [1] Wyoming
Often modeled after the federal Constitution, they outline the structure of the state government and typically establish a bill of rights, an executive branch headed by a governor (and often one or more other officials, such as a lieutenant governor and state attorney general), a state legislature, and state courts, including a state supreme ...
Judicial interpretation is the way in which the judiciary construes the law, particularly constitutional documents, legislation and frequently used vocabulary.This is an important issue in some common law jurisdictions such as the United States, Australia and Canada, because the supreme courts of those nations can overturn laws made by their legislatures via a process called judicial review.
Although the Supreme Court did not strike down the act in question, the Court engaged in the process of judicial review by considering the constitutionality of the tax. The case was widely publicized at the time, and observers understood that the Court was testing the constitutionality of an act of Congress. [ 44 ]
The adequate and independent state ground doctrine states that when a litigant petitions the U.S. Supreme Court to review the judgment of a state court which rests upon both federal and non-federal (state) law, the U.S. Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over the case if the state ground is (1) “adequate” to support the judgment, and ...
Although state supreme court rulings on matters of state law are final, rulings on matters of federal law (generally made under the state court's concurrent jurisdiction) can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. Each state supreme court consists of a panel of judges selected by methods outlined in the state constitution. Among ...