query: what does a litigant who loses in a trial court have the right to in most situations

pos: Lawsuit (which may be structured as an intermediate appellate court) and/or a higher court then affirms the judgment, declines to hear it (which effectively affirms it), reverses—or vacates and remands. This process would then involve sending the lawsuit back to the lower trial court to address an unresolved issue, or possibly request for a whole new trial. Some lawsuits go up and down the appeals ladder repeatedly before final resolution. The appeal is a review for errors rather than a new trial, so the appellate court will defer to the discretion of the original trial court if an error is not

pos: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division decided by the appeals court before a trial, after which there may be a successful appeal to have the entire case dismissed -- wasting much time and money in the process. (If the prosecutor loses an exclusionary case, that would almost always be a Final Order and the prosecutor would have 45 days to appeal -- the same as any other litigant.) Interlocutory appeals are highly disfavored, as a result, in New Jersey, they must be filed within 20 days of the order being questioned -- not the usual 45 day period. Also, the chance of being granted an interlocutory

pos: Public defender (United States) are handled by court-appointed private attorneys. Notably, the landmark "Gideon" case only gives an indigent criminal defendant a right to be represented at "trial" and upon the first appeal as of right. But the Supreme Court has held that there is no right to representation for discretionary appeals or post-conviction collateral attacks like "habeas corpus" and "coram nobis". In other words, an indigent convicted criminal who loses his trial and first appeal of right, if one is available (one state, Virginia, does not even allow an appeal of right), is on his own afterwards. Of course, an appellate public defender,

pos: Civil restraint order Civil restraint order In the law of England and Wales, a civil restraint order (CRO) is a court order intended to prevent vexatious litigation. Courts have the means of escalating the sanctions against a litigant who makes applications to the court that are "totally without merit": There are three types of CRO: limited, extended and general, with different scopes of application: Further applications totally without merit can lead to withdrawal of the right of appeal. Harassment of the court and court officials can lead to a penal prohibition notice, prohibiting the litigant from contacting or approaching the court without permission.

pos: Litigant in person paperwork and orally argue a full legal appeal case in front of three High Court judges and a full court. In "Battle v Irish Art Promotion Centre Ltd", the Supreme Court of Ireland ruled that a company cannot be represented by a corporate officer in lieu of a barrister or solicitor. The ""Battle" rule" has been slightly relaxed by later decisions. Litigant in person In England and Wales, a litigant in person is an individual, company or organisation that has rights of audience (this is, the right to address the court) and is not represented in a court of England

pos: Standing (law) statute under which the application or the appeal is brought. Some statutes provide for a narrow right of standing while others provide for a broader right of standing. Frequently a litigant wishes to bring a civil action for a declaratory judgment against a public body or official. This is considered an aspect of administrative law, sometimes with a constitutional dimension, as when the litigant seeks to have legislation declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Canada developed the concept of public interest standing in three constitutional cases commonly called "the Standing trilogy": "Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada", "Nova Scotia Board

pos: Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1991 the Supreme Court ruled in "R. v. Furtney" that section 11(g) does not require that all people must be "aware" of what is criminal and what is not. International law is recognized by section 11(g), and the Court acknowledged the federal government is not obligated to make sure all Canadians are aware of what international law says. Section 11(h) provides that This provision prohibits double jeopardy, but only applies after the trial is finally concluded. The Crown has the right to appeal from acquittals. If the appellate court sets aside an acquittal and orders a new trial, that

pos: Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California between the two situations, but there must be a difference consequential to the holding in "Faretta" to distinguish the trial and appellate situations. Justice Stevens states in the opinion that "Our conclusion in "Faretta" extended only to a defendant’s “constitutional right to conduct his own defense.”" Stevens affirms the decision of the lower court that "There is no constitutional right to self-representation on the initial appeal as of right." This rejects the claim that the right to forgo representation of separate counsel at the appellate level was granted by due process and the Fourteenth Amendment. The court also rejected the

pos: Dietrich v The Queen the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. Dietrich v The Queen Dietrich v The Queen is an important legal case decided in the High Court of Australia on 13 November 1992, stemming from an incident that took place on 17 December 1986. It concerned the nature of the right to a fair trial/and under what circumstances indigent defendants (who cannot afford legal representation) should be provided with legal aid by the state. The case determined that although there is no absolute right to have publicly-funded counsel, a judge should grant any request for an adjournment or stay in most circumstances

pos: Civil restraint order HM Courts Service maintains a list of vexatious litigants. Civil restraint order In the law of England and Wales, a civil restraint order (CRO) is a court order intended to prevent vexatious litigation. Courts have the means of escalating the sanctions against a litigant who makes applications to the court that are "totally without merit": There are three types of CRO: limited, extended and general, with different scopes of application: Further applications totally without merit can lead to withdrawal of the right of appeal. Harassment of the court and court officials can lead to a penal prohibition notice, prohibiting the

pos: Supreme Court Case Selections Act district court of three judges." Prior to the enactment of the Act, § 1257 read as follows: The Act removed subsections (1) and (2), which had provided for the right of appeal, struck "appeal" from the section catchline, and reorganized the remaining text: Supreme Court Case Selections Act The Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988 (, codified at ) is an act of Congress that eliminated appeals as of right from state court decisions to the Supreme Court of the United States. After the Act took effect, in most cases, the only avenue by which a litigant could obtain

pos: Human rights in Japan use in court may be suppressed. Critics claimed that legal representatives of defendants did not always have access to all needed relevant material in the police record. A defendant who is dissatisfied with the decision of a trial court of first instance may appeal to a higher court. No guidelines mandate the acceptable quality of communications between judges, lawyers, and non-Japanese speaking defendants, and no standard licensing or qualification system for certifying court interpreters exists. A trial may proceed even if the accused does not understand what is happening or being said. Foreign detainees frequently claimed that police urged them

pos: California courts of appeal published California precedent that articulates a point of law relevant to a particular set of facts, even if the superior court would have decided differently if writing on a fresh slate. However, another court of appeal division or district may rule differently on that point of law after a litigant seeks relief from an adverse trial court ruling that faithfully applied existing precedent. In that instance, all superior courts are free to pick and choose which precedent they wish to follow until the state supreme court settles the issue for the entire state, although a superior court confronted with such

pos: Post conviction his or her legal rights. The post-conviction process is in place to protect innocent individuals from inherent human error in the criminal justice system. One study cites 10,000 innocent people are convicted each year in the United States. The appeals process is the request for a formal change of a decision made by a court of law. The litigant who files the appeal is known as the "appellant." A successful appeal must demonstrate to a higher court that the trial court made a decision affected by legal error. The appellate procedure in the United States takes place in appellate court,

pos: State court (United States) it were a county based court. If one of the litigants is unsatisfied with the decision of the lower court, the matter may be taken up on appeal (but an acquittal in a criminal trial may not be appealed by the state due to the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy). Usually, an intermediate appellate court, if there is one in that state, often called the state court of appeals, will review the decision of the trial court. If still unsatisfied, the litigant can appeal to the highest appellate court in the state, which is usually called the state supreme

pos: Juries in England and Wales for the causes where the right was guaranteed. In "Ward v James", Lord Denning, delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal, held that personal injury cases were unsuitable for jury trials owing to the technical expertise and experience needed in assessing damages. In "Singh v. London Underground Ltd" (1990), a litigant sought a jury trial on a case arising from the King's Cross fire but was refused owing to the technical nature of the case. In 1993, in Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd and others it was held that judges could substitute awards by juries in civil

pos: Procedural impropriety in Singapore administrative law in the case felt there was "no practical distinction" between the two ways of phrasing the test. The other test to establish apparent bias is the "reasonable suspicion of bias" test. This test was approved by the Court of Appeal in "Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v. Lee Kuan Yew" (1992), and involves asking whether a reasonable and fair-minded person sitting in court and knowing all the relevant facts would have a reasonable suspicion that a fair trial for the litigant concerned is not possible, It was endorsed by a different judge of the High Court, Judicial Commissioner Sundaresh Menon, in "Re

pos: Caribbean Court of Justice with the JCPC at least ten times greater than filing an appeal with the CCJ. Although both courts do allow appeals "in forma pauperis", waiving filing fees when they are deemed too burdensome on the individual litigant, the JCPC does so on a more limited basis. Some of the highest costs for litigants however arise when litigation of the case actually begins. In most cases, litigants will have to travel to the United Kingdom (UK) to pursue their cases before the JCPC. This may involve purchasing plane tickets and/or finding and hiring lawyers licensed in the UK. Additionally, Jamaican and

pos: Law of the Bahamas five years. The Supreme Court handles most major cases as the trial court. Jury trial is only available for Supreme Court cases. Criminal defendants have the right to an attorney, but government appointed counsel is provided only in capital cases. There is also a right to be brought before a magistrate within 48 hours, a right to bail, a presumption of innocence, and a right to appeal. The constitution prohibits torture and other cruel punishment. However, in 1991, corporal punishment was reinstated after having been abolished for seven years. Capital punishment is still used despite protests from the United Kingdom,

pos: Wainwright v. Witt found that the court does have a right to ask a juror to step down pretrial if in fact their beliefs do affect the verdict of the trial in any way. Witt’s appeals were dismissed even before a 4th hearing took place. Witt wasn’t the first person who took an appeal to Supreme Court because he was sentenced to death by a death qualified jury. For example, "Knighton vs Maggio", "Witherspoon vs. Illinois", and "Woodward vs. Hutchins" were cases in which all the defendants claimed their Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated and all of their appeals were denied

neg: Legal financing not debt and are not reported to the credit bureaus, so a litigant's credit ratings will not be affected by a litigant obtains a legal funding advance. Legal financing companies normally provide money in the form of a lump sum payment, and generally, no specific account is established for the litigant. If the case proceeds to trial and the litigant loses, the third party funding company receives nothing and loses the money they have invested in the case. In other words, if the litigant loses, he does not have to repay the money. In addition, litigants generally do not have

neg: Barrister to practise their legal knowledge. A "lawyer" does not have any limitation of practice. Spain has a division but it does not correspond to the division in Britain between barristers/advocates and solicitors. "Procuradores" represent the litigant procedurally in court, generally under the authority of a power of attorney executed by a civil law notary, while "abogados" represent the substantive claims of the litigant through trial advocacy. "Abogados" perform both transactional work and advise in connection with court proceedings, and they have full right of audience in front of the court. The court proceeding is carried out with "abogados", not with

neg: Vacated judgment give a "Munsingwear" vacatur, generally allowing this vacatur to be used in three situations: in the matter of "happenstance" (such as the death of a litigant), through a settlement of the parties, or a unilateral action by the prevailing party from the lower court. Vacated judgment A vacated judgment makes a previous legal judgment legally void. A vacated judgment is usually the result of the judgment of an appellate court, which overturns, reverses, or sets aside the judgment of a lower court. An appellate court may also vacate its own decisions. A trial court may have the power under certain

neg: Rights of audience audience. A litigant in person may, however, have the assistance of a McKenzie friend who does not address the court but can offer advice and support to the litigant. These rights have been preserved and extended by the Legal Services Act 2007. The relevant provision (section 12) defining "reserved legal activity" to include advocacy services, came into force on 1 January 2010 under the Legal Services Act 2007 (Commencement No. 6, Transitory, Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order 2009. The 2007 Act gave powers to grant rights of audience to: Post-independence the Republic of Ireland continued to restrict the right of

neg: Litigant in person Litigant in person In England and Wales, a litigant in person is an individual, company or organisation that has rights of audience (this is, the right to address the court) and is not represented in a court of England and Wales by a solicitor or barrister. Instructing a barrister and not a solicitor, for example through the Public Access Scheme, however, does not prevent the party on whose behalf the barrister had been instructed from being a litigant in person. It is possible nevertheless for litigants in England and Wales to obtain free legal advice and in some cases representation

neg: Supreme Court Case Selections Act Supreme Court Case Selections Act The Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988 (, codified at ) is an act of Congress that eliminated appeals as of right from state court decisions to the Supreme Court of the United States. After the Act took effect, in most cases, the only avenue by which a litigant could obtain review of most lower court decisions was through the writ of certiorari, which was granted at the discretion of the Supreme Court, rather than available to the litigant as a matter of right. The Act amended 28 U.S.C. § 1257 to eliminate the

neg: Vexatious litigation obtains the leave of a judge sitting in the Outer House on the Bills in the Court of Session, having satisfied the judge that such legal proceeding is not vexatious." A list of people who have had such an order brought against them is published on the Scottish Courts website. As of June 2018 there are ten names on this list. Under California law a vexatious litigant is someone who does any of the following, most of which require that the litigant be proceeding "pro se", i.e., representing himself: Appeals of an existing action do not count as “final determinations”.

neg: Timeline of women's suffrage in the United States is held. She is denied a trial by jury and loses her case. She never pays the $100 fine for voting. 1873: There is a suffrage demonstration at the Centennial of the Boston Tea Party. 1874: In the case of "Minor v. Happersett", the Supreme Court rules that the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not grant women the right to vote. 1874: There is a referendum in Michigan on women's suffrage, but women's suffrage loses. 1875: Women in Michigan and Minnesota win the right to vote in school elections. 1878: A federal amendment to grant women the right

neg: Res judicata re-litigated. An example would be the establishment of a right to counsel. People who have had liberty taken away (i.e., imprisoned) may be allowed to be re-tried with a counselor as a matter of fairness. RJ may not apply in cases involving the "England reservation". If a litigant files suit in federal court, and that court stays proceedings to allow a state court to consider the questions of state law, the litigant may inform the state court that he reserves any federal-law issues in the action for federal court. If he makes such a reservation, RJ would not bar him

neg: Costs in English law that either does not involve court proceedings, or was issued since 1 April 2013, then a different test applies. In these situations, the court will hold that costs "are proportionate if they bear a reasonable relationship to – In addition, the "necessity" of the costs is not relevant. In cases issued before 1 April 2013, parties have to give estimates of their likely costs should the case reach a trial. They are used to give each side and the Court an idea of what the likely costs burden would be. These are submitted at the allocation and listing stage, and

neg: United States constitutional criminal procedure defendant has a right to trial by jury. The defendant does not have a right, conversely, to a bench trial without the consent of the prosecution. If the defendant is charged with crimes for which the authorized sentence exceeds six months, whether in state or federal court, the defendant has a right to a jury. Further, the defendant has a right to a trial by jury if the actual sentence exceeds six months and the charged crime has no maximum authorized sentence (e.g. contempt of court). But, the defendant does not have a right to a jury in stacked misdemeanor

neg: Legal aid in Germany lawyers’ drafted briefs must have arguable merit thereby ensuring the high quality of representation of indigents. Substandard performance of lawyers is therefore not an option. The German model is also considered to put the indigent litigant on genuine equality with a wealthy litigant. The indigent has the same right to choose her lawyer as a more affluent person. The lawyer representing the indigent is naturally motivated to win the case since as a victorious party he is entitled to recover the full lawyer’s fees, i.e. not just the reduced legal aid fees, from the party that loses the case. The

neg: Napoleon Solo the smallest doubt in your mind, no matter how insignificant the cause, you have to make the ultimate sacrifice. Your respect for what you think is right is your weakness. Solo is also an indefatigable optimist who rarely, if ever, countenances the idea that he might not succeed in everything he attempts. He also keeps a cool head at all times and is utterly unflappable, even in the most dire or life-threatening situations. Unlike his Russian associate, he rarely exhibits anger or loses his temper. "The Man from U.N.C.L.E." was cancelled mid-way through its fourth season in 1968. Vaughn reprised

neg: Juries in the United States handed down in bench trials. In United States Federal courts, there is no absolute right to waive a jury trial. Per Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(a), only if the prosecution and the court consent may a defendant have a waiver of jury trial. However, most states give the defendant the absolute right to waive a jury trial. The right to a jury trial is exclusively that of the criminal defendant; where one has the right to waive a jury trial, and does so, the prosecution cannot ask for one. In "Patton v. United States", one of the jurors became

neg: Lawsuit able to obtain legal financing. Legal financing companies can provide a cash advance to litigants in return for a share of the ultimate settlement or award. If the case ultimately loses, the litigant does not have to pay any of the money funded back. Legal financing is different from a typical bank loan in that the legal financing company does not look at credit history or employment history. Litigants do not have to repay the cash advance with monthly payments, but do have to fill out an application so that the legal financing company can review the merits of the

neg: Janet Stumbo generally sided with consumers and workers against businesses and with defendants in criminal law cases, but noted that there were exceptions. In what the paper called "her most criticized ruling", she found that, under a literal reading of Kentucky law, a litigant who had been injured in an automobile accident could not collect damages unless there was a court ruling that found the other driver in the accident to be negligent. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed this decision, saying Stumbo should have considered the legislature's intent. Stumbo also halted refund payments ordered by a lower court in a finding against

neg: Council of State (Belgium) an inquiry, asking the other party (generally, a government or government agency) for precisions, and so on until the "Council" has a clear picture of the case. The litigant does not have the burden of proof: the "Council" may well decide that the litigant was right and the government was wrong if the information supplied by the litigant was sufficient to enable it to find the missing proofs. Of course, both parties may supply supplemental information until the case is ready for final judgment. A litigant has to make his claim within 60 days after the publication of the regulation

neg: Matthew B. Durrant an innocent third party may be subject to adverse repercussions if a judgment is entered against an absent civil litigant." State v. Levin, 144 P.3d 1096 (Utah 2006) Ralph Levin was convicted in a Utah trial court for possession of marijuana. He appealed the decision to the Utah Court of Appeals on the grounds that the trial court hadn't suppressed condemning statements he had made prior to being read his Miranda Rights. Levin claimed that the trial court had incorrectly concluded that he had not been subjected to custodial interrogation (in which case, he would not have needed to be

neg: Vexatious litigation the court. In New Zealand a person may be declared a vexatious litigant by a High Court Judge on the application of the Attorney-General. A vexatious litigant must then apply to a High Court Judge for leave to commence any action. A decision by the High Court whether or not to grant leave cannot be appealed. Courts in England and Wales have the means of escalating the sanctions against a litigant who makes applications to the court that are "totally without merit": Civil restraint orders allow courts to forbid applications for court hearings without the permission of a judge. There

neg: Hollingsworth v. Perry "lengthy pedigree" of similar rulings on the same point of law, such as "Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife" ("[A litigant] raising only a generally available grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article III case or controversy."), "Allen v. Wright" ("an asserted right to have the Government act in accordance with law is not sufficient, standing alone, to confer jurisdiction on a federal court"), "Diamond v. Charles"

neg: Fracture (2007 film) Wooton & Simms, and flirts with his future boss, Nikki Gardner (Rosamund Pike). At the trial, Crawford acts as his own attorney, thereby matching himself, an untrained litigant, against a star prosecutor. Crawford informs the court that the arresting officer (Nunally) was having an affair with his wife, assaulted him during his arrest, and was present during his interrogation. Crawford's confession is therefore ruled inadmissible as evidence, being "fruit of the poisonous tree". Beachum discovers that Crawford's handgun could not have been used in the shooting because it does not match shell casings at the crime scene and in fact

neg: Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. about?" Rodriguez-Ramon concluded. "An antitrust litigant in this country has a right to litigate before a court and before his peers. He is entitled to have a trial by jury. He is entitled to be heard by 12 of his peers concerning whether the defendant has committed ... a restraint of trade." Lastly, Rodriguez-Ramon distinguished Soler's case from "Scherk" by two factors. First, the contract had not been negotiated as it had been in the older case; and second, the contract in "Scherk" called for performance overseas while Soler had to make its performance in a U.S. territory. Nor did

neg: Vexatious litigation around 12. "While there is no bright line rule as to what constitutes “repeatedly,” most cases affirming the vexatious litigant designation involve situations where litigants have filed dozens of motions either during the pendency of an action or relating to the same judgment." Repeated motions must be "so devoid of merit and be so frivolous that they can be described as a flagrant abuse of the system, have no reasonable probability of success, lack reasonable or probable cause or excuse, and are clearly meant to abuse the processes of the courts and to harass the adverse party than other litigants."

neg: Litigant in person jurisdictions the "litigant in person" is restricted from cross-examining the alleged victim in rape and other serious sexual offences. The underlying policy is that an alleged victim should not have to answer directly to an alleged rapist. The right of the individual to defend themselves is in conflict with the need to protect the alleged victim from any further humiliation. In the UK this conflict is resolved by the court appointing a special counsel at public expense to conduct cross-examination. High-profile cases in Scotland where the accused conducted his own defence and lost were Peter Manuel (who was hanged) and

neg: Substitution (law) Substitution (law) In legal terms, the right of substitution is a statutory right of all parties except the state. It is the right to change the presiding court official with or without cause. Judges are usually given cases randomly within a jurisdiction (unless there is only one judge in a jurisdiction, in which case they receive all cases). The right of substitution does not give a litigant the right to choose a judge, just the random selection of another judge in the jurisdiction. If the right is exercised in a jurisdiction with one judge usually a judge from a neighboring

neg: Substitution (law) be exercised after arraignment or indictment but before a preliminary hearing. Sometimes the motion must be made a certain number of days before the "prelim" or scheduling order is held. Substitution (law) In legal terms, the right of substitution is a statutory right of all parties except the state. It is the right to change the presiding court official with or without cause. Judges are usually given cases randomly within a jurisdiction (unless there is only one judge in a jurisdiction, in which case they receive all cases). The right of substitution does not give a litigant the right to

neg: Trial in absentia amended the Rule in 1973, the right is not absolute. Rule 43 provides that a defendant shall be present However, the following exceptions are included in the Rule: Indeed, several U.S. Supreme Court decisions have recognized that a defendant may forfeit the right to be present at trial through disruptive behavior, or through his or her voluntary absence after trial has begun. In 1993, the Supreme Court revisited Rule 43 in the case of "Crosby v. United States". The Court unanimously held, in an opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun, that Rule 43 does not permit the trial of a

neg: Ham v. South Carolina there is a reasonable possibility that racial or ethnic prejudice might have influenced the jury." Ham v. South Carolina Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court decision concerning examinations of prospective jurors during voir dire. The Court held that the trial court's failure to "have the jurors interrogated on the issue of racial bias" violated the petitioner's due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment. This right does not extend to any question of bias, but it does not preclude questions of relevant biases. Gene Ham was a black man who was arrested on

neg: Trial of Geert Wilders called, rejecting the lawyers and Islamic extremists. The court also rejected the plea by Wilders's lawyer to transfer the case to the Supreme Court due to Wilders status as an MP. The court overruled this objection against its jurisdiction. "Parliamentary immunity does not extend to what a public representative says or writes outside of parliamentary gatherings." said Jan Moors, one of the judges at the Amsterdam court. Wilders consequently argued that he was being denied his right to a fair trial. During the trial it became clear that the prosecutors were arguing for Wilders to be acquitted on all five

neg: Supreme Administrative Court (Austria) linked to the right to complain to an administrative trial court about negligent bureaucrats (). On the one hand, a complaint to an administrative court does not necessarily have suspensory effect. On the other hand, administrative trial courts are not just but : they cannot merely void administrative decisions but can issue substantive decisions themselves. Inactivity on the part of an administrative trial court can therefore hurt a complainant in much the same way as inactivity on the part of the bureaucracy can. The court resolves demarcation conflicts between two administrative trial courts, or between an administrative trial court and

neg: ADA Litigation in the United States The U.S. Supreme Court petition raised important constitutional questions with respect to whether the appellate and trial courts discriminated against a deaf litigant when the state appellate judges and state trial court judge refused to provide any of the accommodations required by the ADA federal law. The petition also addressed United Nations law and the human rights of minors who are subjected to parental rights termination (PRT) cases in the State of WA and other states that refuse to assign attorneys to minors in PRT cases. In 2007, the Washington State Supreme Court, in "Danisha Tetreault, et al. v. Elaine

neg: Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato Corona TRO against the Justice Secretary so she can leave the country. Note that a TRO is a provisional remedy under Rule 58 of the Rules of Court which is resorted to by a litigant against acts which “would probably work injustice” or would be “in violation of the rights of the applicant.” In applying for the TRO, Arroyo invoked her constitutional right to travel under section 6, Article III of the Constitution. She claimed that the WLO violated her right to travel considering that only those who have pending cases in court may be validly prevented by a judge to

neg: Jury trial lawsuit; civil law is the branch of common law dealing with non-criminal actions. It should not be confused with legal system of civil law." The right to trial by jury in a civil case in federal court is addressed by the Seventh Amendment. Importantly, however, the Seventh Amendment does not guarantee a right to a civil jury trial in state courts (although most state constitutions guarantee such a right). The Seventh Amendment provides: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried

neg: Double Jeopardy Clause rather than to continue to debate his innocence. Noting that the murder charge may have poisoned the jury against Price, the Supreme Court vacated the voluntary manslaughter conviction and remanded the case. As double jeopardy applies only to charges that were the subject of an earlier "final" judgment, there are many situations in which it does not apply, despite the appearance of a retrial. For example, a second trial held after a mistrial does not violate the double jeopardy clause because a mistrial ends a trial prematurely without a judgment of guilty or not, as decided by the U.S. Supreme

neg: Ham v. South Carolina Ham v. South Carolina Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court decision concerning examinations of prospective jurors during voir dire. The Court held that the trial court's failure to "have the jurors interrogated on the issue of racial bias" violated the petitioner's due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment. This right does not extend to any question of bias, but it does not preclude questions of relevant biases. Gene Ham was a black man who was arrested on May 15, 1970, in Florence, South Carolina, due to four outstanding warrants that charged him

neg: Trial in absentia phrase. In that respect the language and structure of the Rule could not be more clear. However, the "Crosby" Court reiterated an 80-year-old precedent that "Where the offense is not capital and the accused is not in custody, ...if, "after the trial has begun in his presence", he voluntarily absents himself, this does not nullify what has been done or prevent the completion of the trial, but, on the contrary, operates as a waiver of his right to be present and leaves the court free to proceed with the trial in like manner and with like effect as if he

neg: Devarim (parsha) whose favor judgment inclines, the judge may withdraw from the case to avoid having to rule against the more powerful litigant and suffer harassment from that litigant. Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Jose the Galilean deduced from the words "the judgment is God's" in that once litigants have brought a case to court, a judge must not arbitrate a settlement, for a judge who arbitrates sins by deviating from the requirements of God's Torah; rather, the judge must "let the law cut through the mountain" (and thus even the most difficult case). Rabbi Hama son of Rabbi Haninah read

neg: Juries in the United States held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed". Most states' constitutions also grant the right of trial by jury in lesser criminal matters, though most have eliminated that right in offenses punishable by fine only. The Supreme Court has ruled that if imprisonment is for six months or less, trial by jury is not required, meaning a state may choose whether or not to permit trial by jury in such cases. Specifically, the Supreme Court has held that no offense can be deemed 'petty' for purposes of the right to trial by jury where imprisonment for

neg: Supervised visitation Supervised visitation Supervised visitation allows parents in high conflict or high risk situations access to their children in a safe and supervised environment. The noncustodial parent has access to the child only when supervised by another adult. Supervised visitation is used to protect children from potentially dangerous situations while allowing parental access and providing support for the parent child relationship. Most countries recognize a parent's right to children, called visitation, residence, or contact. Most courts, including American and European, will allow the parent who does not have primary custody (the noncustodial parent) to have specified visitation and access to the

neg: Supervised visitation set guidelines regarding supervised visitation. Supervised visitation Supervised visitation allows parents in high conflict or high risk situations access to their children in a safe and supervised environment. The noncustodial parent has access to the child only when supervised by another adult. Supervised visitation is used to protect children from potentially dangerous situations while allowing parental access and providing support for the parent child relationship. Most countries recognize a parent's right to children, called visitation, residence, or contact. Most courts, including American and European, will allow the parent who does not have primary custody (the noncustodial parent) to have specified

neg: Sunshine in the Courtroom Act and a camera in the courtroom protects the defendant’s right to a public trial. Poe also opined that lawyers play to the jury, not to the camera, and that jurors stated they liked the camera inside the courtroom because they wanted the public to know what they heard "instead of waiting to hear a 30-second sound bite from a newscaster who may or may not have the facts correct." Judge John R. Tunheim opposed the bill, stating that it could deny some defendants a fair trial; e.g. a defendant corporation might forgo its right to a trial because it does

neg: Dietrich v The Queen countries. Australia had no such provisions of rights in either the Constitution or in legislation. In taking that into account, it was argued by the court: The High Court also examined a number of related propositions. In particular, it pointed out that when interpreting the legislation which established legal aid services, Australian courts did not recognise an absolute right to counsel in all circumstances and so the state does not need to provide counsel for the duration of the trial. The court also raised the question of what a right to counsel would actually mean in practice: would a right

neg: Arnstein & Lehr defended Sears. The suit first made legal history in 1980 when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that a plaintiff does not have an absolute right to a trial by jury in a civil case. Subsequently, the defendants, including Sears, filed Motions for Summary Judgment on both the antitrust and dumping claims. After summer long hearings on a daily basis to determine what evidence could be considered on the Summary Judgment Motions, Judge Edward R. Becker entered summary judgment for all defendants on both claims and dismissed what was then a $1,500,000,000.00 lawsuit. Plaintiffs appealed and

neg: Jury trial has a civil law legal tradition, permits jury trials in civil cases in state courts on substantially the same basis that they are allowed under the Seventh Amendment in federal court. The right to a jury trial in civil cases does not extend to the states, except when a state court is enforcing a federally created right, of which the right to trial by jury is a substantial part. The court determines the right to jury based on all claims by all parties involved. If the plaintiff brings only equitable claims but the defendant asserts counterclaims of law, the court

neg: Indiana v. Edwards him. In "Faretta v. California", , the Court held that a criminal defendant cannot be forced to have a lawyer if he does not wish it, but that before the defendant relinquishes his right to counsel the trial judge must ensure that the defendant understands the "dangers and disadvantages" of representing himself. With the decision in "Godinez v. Moran", , the Court held that a defendant may plead guilty (and thereby waive both his right to counsel and his right to represent himself) if he is competent to stand trial. Until "Edwards", however, it remained an open question whether a

neg: State court (United States) personal injury cases, and most of the rest involve breaches of contracts. In states where a state constitution provides for a right to a jury trial, or a right to open courts, this has sometimes been interpreted to confer not only a procedural right to a certain type of trial, but also a substantive right to have redress through the courts for the kinds of injuries that were compensable at common law. Prior to trial, most proceedings in non-criminal courts are conducted via papers filed in the court, often through lawyers. In limited jurisdiction courts, it is not uncommon for

neg: Civil procedure in South Africa a court of law, he has to prove that he has title to sue. This is determined by two questions: Under the common law, a litigant had title to sue if he could show that he had a direct and substantial interest in the matter. The requirements were as follows: In actions based on the Bill of Rights, the grounds on which a litigant may have "locus standi" are listed in section 38, in terms of which the following may litigate: Someone may be the right person to litigate, but he may still lack capacity to sue. Capacity determines a

neg: Dietrich v The Queen Dietrich v The Queen Dietrich v The Queen is an important legal case decided in the High Court of Australia on 13 November 1992, stemming from an incident that took place on 17 December 1986. It concerned the nature of the right to a fair trial/and under what circumstances indigent defendants (who cannot afford legal representation) should be provided with legal aid by the state. The case determined that although there is no absolute right to have publicly-funded counsel, a judge should grant any request for an adjournment or stay in most circumstances in which an accused is unrepresented. It

neg: Jury trial accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." Both provisions were made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Most states' constitutions also grant the right of trial by jury in lesser criminal matters, though most have abrogated that right in offenses punishable by fine only. The Supreme Court has ruled that if imprisonment is for six months or less, trial by jury is not required, meaning a state may choose whether or not to permit trial by jury in

neg: Criminal procedure in South Africa will fall into a "lacuna". In terms of section 35(3)(d) of the Constitution, every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right to have their trial begin and conclude without unreasonable delay. The concept of "unreasonableness" is not defined; the question is left open to interpretation. As this right falls under the entitlement to a fair trial, a deliberate delay in bringing an accused before court will not be entertained. The Constitution refers specifically to an "accused person." Only once a person has been accused of a crime, therefore, does he benefit from this right.

neg: Subic rape case ones who approached [Smith's lawyers] so we can get the [P100,000 court-awarded civil damages] intended for us." Pertaining to Ursua, Suzette's mother added, "What does she want to happen? I’m really angry. Why can’t she just accept that we don’t want her services anymore?" Philippine Supreme Court Rule 121 Section 2b of Criminal Law Procedures states that the court shall grant a new trial if a new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if introduced and admitted would probably changed the judgment. The

neg: Multidistrict litigation does not grant the transferee court any discretion as to remand for trial, even when both courts would prefer to keep the case in the transferee court for trial. After all, by the time a case reaches the trial stage, the transferee has become intimately familiar with the issues, the parties, and their attorneys (because the transferee court will normally have decided one or more motions for summary judgment at that point), while the transferor court must spend time catching up on what happened while the case was away in the MDL. Therefore, the JPML promulgated a court rule authorizing

neg: McKenzie friend McKenzie friend A McKenzie friend assists a litigant in person in a court of law in England and Wales, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, New Zealand, and Australia. This person does not need to be legally qualified. The crucial point is that litigants in person (known as "party litigants" in Scotland) are entitled to have assistance, lay or professional, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Their role was set out most clearly in the eponymous 1970 case "McKenzie v McKenzie". Although in many cases a McKenzie friend may be an actual friend, it is often somebody with knowledge of the

neg: Vyavahāra (xiv) violence; (xv) sexual crimes against women; (xvi) Law concerning husband and wife; (xvii) partition of inheritance; and (xviii) gambling and betting.” The plaint is also sometimes accompanied by a legal wager, or paņa. A legal proceeding is attended with a wager if “before writing down the plaint, a wager is placed like this: ‘The one who is defeated here will give so much to the winner by way of punishment.’" If the litigant who places a wager loses the case, he must pay both the wager amount they placed and the punishment for the crime. However, if one litigant

neg: Criminal procedure in South Africa the right to a speedy trial. Where such infringement does occur, or where it appears imminent, there is a duty to devise and implement an appropriate remedy or combination of remedies. What such remedy or remedies ought to be must be left to be determined in the light of the circumstances of each particular case. The court held that a stay of prosecution could not be granted in the absence of trial-related prejudice or extraordinary circumstances. The court agreed, then, with the decision in "Sanderson v Attorney-General, Eastern Cape" that a permanent stay of prosecution was not appropriate relief in

neg: Stalemate necessarily a draw . Depending on the variant, stalemate can be a draw, or a win for either the player with fewer pieces (a draw results if the players have the same number of pieces) or for the stalemated player. In xiangqi and shogi, a stalemated player loses, although in shogi stalemate essentially does not occur. Stalemate has become a widely used metaphor for other situations where there is a conflict or contest between two parties, such as war or political negotiations, and neither side is able to achieve victory, resulting in what is also called an impasse, a deadlock,

neg: English rule (attorney's fees) English rule (attorney's fees) In the field of law and economics, the English rule (capitalized as English Rule in some jurisdictions) is a rule controlling assessment of lawyers' fees arising out of litigation. The English rule provides that the party who loses in court pays the other party's legal costs. The English rule contrasts with the American rule, under which each party is generally responsible to pay its own attorneys' fees, unless a statute or contract provides for that assessment. The rationale for the English rule is that a litigant (whether bringing a claim or defending a claim) is entitled

neg: Writ of prohibition an inferior court is acting outside the normal rules and procedures in the examination of a case. In another instance, the document is issued at times when an inferior court is deemed headed towards defeating a legal right. In criminal proceedings, a defendant who has been committed for trial may petition to the superior court for a writ of prohibition, in this case on the ground that his conduct, even if proven, does not constitute the offense charged. Prohibition is more often used by appellate courts. Most often, these courts issue writs of prohibition to prevent lower courts from exceeding

neg: Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution juries, which return indictments in many criminal cases, are composed of a jury of peers and operate in closed deliberation proceedings; they are given specific instructions regarding the law by the judge. Many constitutional restrictions that apply in court or in other situations do not apply during grand jury proceedings. For example, the exclusionary rule does not apply to certain evidence presented to a grand jury; the exclusionary rule states that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth, Fifth or Sixth amendments cannot be introduced in court. Also, an individual does not have the right to have an attorney present

neg: Ethical implications in contracts of moral relativism, most people would agree that it is ethically wrong to use wealth to control a situation and to ‘force’ people into renegotiating clauses in contracts if they are unable to afford the legal bill accompanying a dispute. However, as moral relativism is subject to a one’s own beliefs on what is right and wrong, some may not view using wealth as a means to control as being the wrong thing to do. In situations such as these, the ‘little man’ usually loses out and will ultimately succumb to the power of the other party or parties. Undue

neg: Edward Blum (litigant) UNC have not revealed their identities because they want to shield themselves from potential retaliation. Rather, the named plaintiff is simply "Students for Fair Admissions", and that organization is prepared to assure the courts that it does in fact have members who were injured by the universities' use of race. Edward Blum (litigant) Edward Blum is a politically conservative legal strategist and civil rights activist known for his activism against laws involving race and ethnicity. Blum is not an attorney. He connects potential plaintiffs with attorneys who are willing to represent them in "test cases" which he tries to use

neg: Nunc pro tunc arguments on a return or other document submitted to the Service has no legal effect. A judgment "nunc pro tunc" is an action by a trial court correcting a clerical (rather than judicial) error in a prior judgment. A "nunc pro tunc" may be signed even after the trial court loses its plenary power. For appellate purposes, a "nunc pro tunc" judgment correctly taken ordinarily does not extend appellate deadlines. In the Catholic Church, a bishop's resignation is often accepted by the Holy See "nunc pro tunc", which means it is tentatively accepted, but the Pope needs some time to

neg: Eviction a written response by a specified date, after which time another date is set for the trial. Other jurisdictions may simply require the tenant to appear in court on a specified date. Eviction cases are often expedited since the issue is time-sensitive (the landlord loses rental income while the tenant remains in possession). A jury trial may be requested by either party, however until the late 2000s that was very uncommon. If the tenant does not file an answer or appear in court, the landlord can then request a default judgment and win the lawsuit automatically, being awarded possession of

neg: New York City Criminal Court heard in the regular AP Part. The Summons All Purpose Part (SAP) hears cases brought to court by universal summonses issued by law enforcement personnel. Summons court handles low-level offenses. Defendants may waive their right to a trial before a judge and have the trial held by a judicial hearing officer. The District Attorney does not staff the SAP Part. The NYPD's Legal Bureau has a memorandum of understanding with the Manhattan District Attorney allowing the NYPD to selectively prosecute summons court cases. The summons court is sometimes called the "People's Court" because Criminal Court judges routinely authorize summonses and

neg: Marilyn Milian logical in her observations and handling of the cases. Although engaging for the most part, Milian also dishes out a good-natured, lively sass at the litigants and does not tolerate any disrespect from them. Milian informally speaks with her audience and answers their various questions outside of tapings of "The People's Court." From her Cuban heritage, Milian often quotes phrases from her grandmother when addressing litigants. For example, in admonishing a litigant who tried lying before her, Milian once stated, ""No sabes ni adobar la mentira"... You don't even know how to season the lie to make it palatable." On

neg: Legal aid in Germany are met and legal aid thus granted will the court communicate the complaint to the other party and the judicial dispute thereby commences with the costs borne by the court. However, the legal aid seeking litigant can also lodge effectively the complaint together with auxiliary legal aid request but without making the pendency of the case dependent on the court granting legal aid; or the litigant requests legal aid support at a later stage but before completion of case procedures. In the latter scenarios, if legal aid is rejected by the court the litigant, who sought legal aid, will bear

neg: Privatization in criminal justice private bail bondsmen help enforce the laws requiring those released on bail to appear for trial. If the defendant disappears, the bondsman may hire a bounty hunter to find them and bring them back. The bondsman also has a monetary incentive to make an accurate assessment as to the defendant's likelihood of jumping bail; if he declines to grant a bond to an individual who would have shown up to trial, then he loses business, but if he grants bail to a person who jumps bail, then he suffers a financial loss. The government does not have such incentives built

neg: South African constitutional litigation The German Bill of Rights does not have a general limitations clause, but it does contain specific limitations clauses attached to most of the fundamental rights. The court, in determining whether or not a right has been unjustifiably infringed, undertakes what is essentially a two-stage exercise. First, there is the threshold enquiry aimed at determining whether or not the enactment in question constitutes a limitation on one or other guaranteed right. This entails examining (a) the content and scope of the relevant protected right(s) and (b) the meaning and effect of the impugned enactment to see whether there is any

neg: Natural justice Court adjusted the "Gough" test by stating it to be "whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased". This case therefore established the current test in the UK to be one of a "real possibility of bias". On the other hand, the reasonable suspicion test asks whether a reasonable and fair-minded person sitting in court and knowing all the relevant facts would have a reasonable suspicion that a fair trial for the litigant is not possible. Although not currently adopted in the UK, this test

neg: Standing (law) governments as well. However, the Supreme Court has also held that taxpayer standing is constitutionally sufficient to sue a municipal government in a federal court. States are also protected against lawsuits by their sovereign immunity. Even where states waive their sovereign immunity, they may nonetheless have their own rules limiting standing against simple taxpayer standing against the state. Furthermore, states have the power to determine what will constitute standing for a litigant to be heard in a state court, and may deny access to the courts premised on taxpayer standing alone. In Florida, a taxpayer has standing to sue if

neg: Law of evidence in South Africa the witness to be indemnified twice. Section 204 does not violate the right to a fair trial. In "S v Suliman", it was argued that it does so violate; the court disagreed. At pre-trial stage, accused not obliged to say anything; right not to incriminate himself: S v Melani; S v Mathebula. Note that this privilege does not extend to bodily characteristics of accused, which may be obtained under s 37 of CPA: Ex parte Minister of Justice: in re R v Matemba Levack v Regional Magistrate, Wynberg Bail proceedings: accused can decline to answer incriminating questions: note that court

neg: Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution the defendant is charged. Petty offenses—those punishable by imprisonment for no more than six months—are not covered by the jury requirement. Even where multiple petty offenses are concerned, the total time of imprisonment possibly exceeding six months, the right to a jury trial does not exist. Also, in the United States, except for serious offenses (such as murder), minors are usually tried in a juvenile court, which lessens the sentence allowed, but forfeits the right to a jury. Originally, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial indicated a right to "a trial by jury

neg: United States Constitution protected right must be immediately threatened by government action. Cases are not taken up if the litigant has no standing to sue. Simply having the money to sue and being injured by government action are not enough. These three procedural ways of dismissing cases have led critics to charge that the Supreme Court delays decisions by unduly insisting on technicalities in their "standards of litigability". They say cases are left unconsidered which are in the public interest, with genuine controversy, and resulting from good faith action. "The Supreme Court is not only a court of law but a court of

neg: Jury fees Code of Civil Procedure Sections 631-636. Here are notable excerpts: Jury fees Jury fees refer to the daily stipend paid to jurors. The source of these fees varies according to the kind of trial. Government pays the fees in criminal trials, while the litigants share the costs in a civil action as part of court costs. Not infrequently, the entire burden of court costs may be shifted to the loser of a civil action. A deposit of one day's fees may be required in advance of the trial by the litigant requesting the presence of a jury. California's jury fee

neg: Jury fees Jury fees Jury fees refer to the daily stipend paid to jurors. The source of these fees varies according to the kind of trial. Government pays the fees in criminal trials, while the litigants share the costs in a civil action as part of court costs. Not infrequently, the entire burden of court costs may be shifted to the loser of a civil action. A deposit of one day's fees may be required in advance of the trial by the litigant requesting the presence of a jury. California's jury fee provisions appear at Code of Civil Procedure section 215 and

neg: Perjury in Nigeria or imminent. Also where a witness in a judicial proceeding, contradicts his earlier statement cannot furnish a ground for the conviction of an accused person. The Nigerian Supreme Court stated so in the case of Joshua v The Queen, where the accused, a Customary Court President, was charged with demanding and with receiving, money to favour a litigant. A witness, who is said to be the go-between when first testifying before a magistrate, denied the corruption; later after a prosecution was begun against him for making a false statement as the police, he testified against the accused. The trial judge

neg: Truth and Justice his first wife Krõõt, who dies after giving birth to their first son. Andres, who wants to defend what he considers right, eventually loses his vision of right and wrong, and manages to cheat his archenemy, Pearu. In the second part Indrek enters a private school in a town, actually Tartu, although Tammsaare does not mention its name. Indrek falls in love with Ramilda, the daughter of the school director. She dies of tuberculosis and Indrek renounces God, publishing an article in the school paper which gets him expelled from school. In the third part Indrek participates in the revolutionary

neg: Sol Levi but is a good brother even though the mistakes he makes override the good things he has done for Sol. Cole said that Sol is not a troublemaker but he gets into trouble without meaning to as trouble comes to him. Although he does not bring attention to himself, he has a bad temper and hides his feelings with violence. He gets into a few fights throughout the series, and makes situations worse by getting physical. Sol does not understand or think about what he is doing when he loses his temper. Cole also said that trust is an issue

neg: Marsy's Law the passage of Proposition 9, most victims did not address the court until after a conviction or plea. In addition, actions to bar victims from the courtroom under a "motion to exclude witnesses" are now routinely denied. Victims have a right to be present in court and prosecutors are trained to call victims who will be witnesses in the case to testify first so they can remain in the courtroom for the entire trial. Marsy's Law also gives victims the right to be represented by counsel of their choosing, rather than relying on the prosecutor, who has a legal obligation

neg: Assistance of Counsel Clause trial will not affirm the dignity of a defendant who lacks the mental capacity to conduct his defense without the assistance of counsel." In "Bounds v. Smith", , the Supreme Court held that the constitutional right of "meaningful access to the courts" can be satisfied by counsel or access to legal materials. "Bounds" has been interpreted by several United States courts of appeals to mean a "pro se" defendant does not have a constitutional right to access a prison law library to research his defense when access to the courts has been provided through appointed counsel. In Louisiana, the state

neg: Kitchen v. Herbert opposite-sex couples who are unable to reproduce or who choose not to have children. Under the State's reasoning, a post-menopausal woman or infertile man does not have a fundamental right to marry because she or he does not have the capacity to procreate." The court affirmed a "constitutionally protected right not to procreate", referencing "Griswold v. Connecticut". The court also held that same-sex marriage and interracial marriage, as held in "Loving v. Virginia", are not new rights but "simply manifestations of one right—the right to marry—applied to people with different sexual identities." The court added that the Constitution allows different