Ads
related to: can federal courts decide cases of legal problemslegal.thomsonreuters.com has been visited by 10K+ users in the past month
courtrec.com has been visited by 100K+ users in the past month
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Article III of the United States Constitution permits federal courts to hear such cases, so long as the United States Congress passes a statute to that effect. However, when Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the newly created federal courts to hear such cases, it initially chose not to allow the lower federal courts to possess federal question jurisdiction for fear ...
In the federal system, courts may only decide actual cases or controversies; it is not possible to request the federal courts to review a law without at least one party having legal standing to engage in a lawsuit. This principle means that courts sometimes do not exercise their power of review, even when a law is seemingly unconstitutional ...
First, the Court has held that the clause identifies the scope of matters which a federal court can and cannot consider as a case (i.e., it distinguishes between lawsuits within and beyond the institutional competence of the federal judiciary), and limits federal judicial power only to such lawsuits as the court is competent to hear.
The court has plenary authority to decide whether to accept the appeal or not. Of the more than 7,000 cases annually where permission to appeal is sought, only 100 to150 cases are accepted.
The Erie case involved a fundamental question of federalism and the jurisdiction of federal courts in the United States. In 1789, the Congress passed a law still in effect today called the Rules of Decision Act (28 U.S.C. § 1652), which states that the laws of a state furnish the rules of decision for a federal court sitting in that state.
Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. is an example of such a case. The court tries to avoid tied votes when possible. When a new justice is appointed, ordinarily only the other eight justices will decide any case that has already had oral arguments. But when the participating justices are evenly split, the case may be reargued with the new justice.
A ruling of nonjusticiability, in the end, prevents the issue that brought the case before the court from being resolved in a court of law. In the typical case where there is a finding of nonjusticiability due to the political question doctrine, the issue presented before the court is either so specific that the Constitution gives sole power to one of the political branches, or the issue ...
Today, if a federal court were presented with a case identical to Pullman and the parties chose not to press the nonconstitutional claims, the court, relying on Zobrest, could reach the equal protection claim. Relying on Siler, the court could decide the state law issues itself; or, alternatively, it could apply Pullman abstention. [31]