 | This article needs additional citations for verification .(February 2021) |
Each judge or courtroom in the United States has a law and motion calendar, setting aside the times when only motions and special legal arguments are heard. These items consist of pretrial motions (such as a motion to compel relating to discovery requests) or other legal requests that are not connected to a trial, and do not include trials themselves. [1]
In legal terminology, a complaint is any formal legal document that sets out the facts and legal reasons that the filing party or parties believes are sufficient to support a claim against the party or parties against whom the claim is brought that entitles the plaintiff(s) to a remedy. For example, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) that govern civil litigation in United States courts provide that a civil action is commenced with the filing or service of a pleading called a complaint. Civil court rules in states that have incorporated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure use the same term for the same pleading.
A lawsuit is a proceeding by one or more parties against one or more parties in a civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used with respect to a civil action brought by a plaintiff who requests a legal remedy or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint or else risk default judgment. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff, and the Court may impose the legal and/or equitable remedies available against the defendant (respondent). A variety of court orders may be issued in connection with or as part of the judgment to enforce a right, award damages or restitution, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.
In law, a summary judgment, also referred to as judgment as a matter of law or summary disposition, is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party summarily, i.e., without a full trial. Summary judgments may be issued on the merits of an entire case, or on discrete issues in that case. The formulation of the summary judgment standard is stated in somewhat different ways by courts in different jurisdictions. In the United States, the presiding judge generally must find there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." In England and Wales, the court rules for a party without a full trial when "the claim, defence or issue has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial."
In United States law, a motion is a procedural device to bring a limited, contested issue before a court for decision. It is a request to the judge to make a decision about the case. Motions may be made at any point in administrative, criminal or civil proceedings, although that right is regulated by court rules which vary from place to place. The party requesting the motion is the moving party or movant. The party opposing the motion is the nonmoving party or nonmovant.
Discovery, in the law of common law jurisdictions, is a phase of pretrial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from other parties by means of methods of discovery such as interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from nonparties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery. Conversely, a party or nonparty resisting discovery can seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion for a protective order.
In U.S. law, a motion in limine is a motion, discussed outside the presence of the jury, to request that certain testimony be excluded. A motion in limine can also be used to get a ruling to allow for the inclusion of evidence. The motion is decided by a judge in both civil and criminal proceedings. It is frequently used at pre-trial hearings or during trial, and it can be used at both the state and federal levels.
In United States federal law, the Daubert standard is a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witness testimony. A party may raise a Daubert motion, a special motion in limine raised before or during trial, to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. The Daubert trilogy are the three United States Supreme Court cases that articulated the Daubert standard:
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern civil procedure in United States district courts. They are the companion to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rules promulgated by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act become part of the FRCP unless, within seven months, the United States Congress acts to veto them. The Court's modifications to the rules are usually based upon recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary's internal policy-making body.
In the United States courts, a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) is a motion made by a party, during trial, claiming the opposing party has insufficient evidence to reasonably support its case. It asserts that the evidence allows only one result: victory for the moving party, even if a jury has found otherwise. JMOL is also known as a directed verdict, which it has replaced in American federal courts.
William Cameron Canby Jr. is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting in Phoenix, Arizona.
A motion to strike is a request by one party in a United States trial requesting that the presiding judge order the removal of all or part of the opposing party's pleading to the court. These motions are most commonly sought by the defendant, as to a matter contained in the plaintiff's complaint; however, they may also be asserted by plaintiffs to a defendant's answer or other pleadings such as cross-complaints. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that "The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Similarly, for example, the California Code of Civil Procedure provides that a motion to strike may be made to strike out any "irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading." A motion to strike may also be used to request the elimination of all or a portion of a trial witness's testimony. During a jury trial, if a motion to strike witness testimony is granted, the jury is typically instructed to disregard the stricken statements.
Pro se legal representation means to argue on one's own behalf in a legal proceeding, as a defendant or plaintiff in civil cases, or a defendant in criminal cases, rather than have representation from counsel or an attorney.
The Wisconsin circuit courts are the general trial courts in the state of Wisconsin. There are currently 69 circuits in the state, divided into 9 judicial administrative districts. Circuit court judges hear and decide both civil and criminal cases. Each of the 249 circuit court judges are elected and serve six-year terms.
Beard v. Kindler, 558 U.S. 53 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case that deals with the federal review of state laws, known as the adequate and independent state ground doctrine.
Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's SB 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement that wished to enforce federal immigration laws. The issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement. The Court ruled that sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 were preempted by federal law but left other parts of the law intact, including a provision that allowed law enforcement to investigate a person's immigration status.
Civil law – a branch of the law. In common law countries such as England, Wales, and the United States, the term refers to non-criminal law. The law relating to civil wrongs and quasi-contracts is part of the civil law. The law of property is embraced by civil law. Civil law can, like criminal law, be divided into substantive law and procedural law. The rights and duties of individuals amongst themselves is the primary concern of civil law. It is often suggested that civil proceedings are taken for the purpose of obtaining compensation for injury, and may thus be distinguished from criminal proceedings, whose purpose is to inflict punishment. However, exemplary or punitive damages may be awarded in civil proceedings.
On August 25, 2017, President Donald Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio for criminal contempt of court, a misdemeanor. Arpaio had been convicted of the crime two months earlier for disobeying a federal judge's order to stop racial profiling in detaining "individuals suspected of being in the U.S. illegally". The pardon covered Arpaio's conviction and "any other offenses under Chapter 21 of Title 18, United States Code that might arise, or be charged, in connection with Melendres v. Arpaio." The official White House statement announcing the grant of clemency described Arpaio as a "worthy candidate" having served the nation for more than fifty years "protecting the public from the scourges of crime and illegal immigration."
Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, et al. was a climate-related lawsuit filed in 2015 and dismissed in 2020. Filed by 21 youth plaintiffs against the United States and several executive branch officials. Filing their case in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, the plaintiffs, represented by the non-profit organization Our Children's Trust, include Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, the members of Martinez's organization Earth Guardians, and climatologist James Hansen as a "guardian for future generations". Some fossil fuel and industry groups initially intervened as defendants but later requested to be dropped following the 2016 presidential election, stating that the case would be well defended under the new administration.
The 2022 Arizona Attorney General election took place on November 8, 2022, to elect the next attorney general of Arizona concurrently with other federal and state elections. Incumbent Republican attorney general Mark Brnovich was term-limited and could not seek a third term in office. With a margin of 0.01%, Democrat Kris Mayes defeated Republican Abe Hamadeh in one of the closest elections in Arizona history, and the closest attorney general race of the 2022 election cycle. The race is also believed to be the only election directly affected by the deaths of anti-vaccine advocates from COVID-19.
Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 429 F.2d 1106, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case involving the disputed authorship of a number of skits which appeared in the movie National Lampoon's TV: The Movie, released in November 2006 in the United States, which starred Steve-O, Preston Lacy, Jason "Wee Man" Acuña, Chris Pontius, Clifton Collins Jr., Danny Trejo, Jacob Vargas, Judd Nelson, Jason Mewes, Tony Cox, and Eugenio Derbez. The movie was directed by Sam Maccarone, and written by Cyrus Ahanchian, Steve-O, Preston Lacey, and Sam Macarone. In 2010, by reversing the original decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals used filmmaker Ahanchian's legal victory to enjoin lawyers everywhere in the United States with the right to take vacation time before a trial ends as a professional civility. Afterwards, in December 2010, LexisNexis ranked Ahanchian's copyright legal win as both the #2 and the #3 Copyright Cases of 2010. As of June 29, 2022, Ahanchian V Xenon has been cited in over 537 federal cases in the USA or an average of four times per month.
 | This law-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |