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 ...
There are many types of standard of review for appeals, such as de novo and abuse of discretion. However, most appeals begin when a party files a petition for review to a higher court for the purpose of overturning the lower court's decision. An appellate court is a court that hears cases on appeal from another court.
Some have argued that judicial review exclusively by the federal courts is unconstitutional [72] based on two arguments. First, the power of judicial review is not delegated to the federal courts in the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states (or to the people) those powers not delegated to the federal government.
By statute or by judicial expansion of the writ of mandamus in most of the U.S. states, acts of administrative agencies are now subject to judicial review for abuse of discretion. [14] Judicial review of agencies of the United States federal government, for abuse of discretion, is authorized by the U.S. Administrative Procedure Act.
Hence, Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution states in part that: Judicial power includes the duty of courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on ...
Judicial discretion is the power of the judiciary to make some legal decisions according to their discretion. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the ability of judges to exercise discretion is an aspect of judicial independence. Where appropriate, judicial discretion allows a judge to decide a legal case or matter within a range of ...
Yet because the reasonableness standard was in truth an abuse-of-discretion standard, he felt bound to defer to the assessment of the trial court. Justice Scalia theorized that reasonableness review can be only procedural and not substantive. This conclusion flows from the Sixth Amendment requirement that any fact legally necessary to support a ...
General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997), was a Supreme Court of the United States case between Robert Joiner and General Electric Co. that concerned whether the abuse of discretion standard is the correct standard an appellate court should apply in reviewing a trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony. [1]