Related Research Articles
Mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do, and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to reject or authorize applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.
A writ of prohibition is a writ directing a subordinate to stop doing something the law prohibits. This writ is often issued by a superior court to the lower court directing it not to proceed with a case which does not fall under its jurisdiction.
A prerogative writ is a historic term for a writ that directs the behavior of another arm of government, such as an agency, official, or other court. It was originally available only to the Crown under English law, and reflected the discretionary prerogative and extraordinary power of the monarch. The term may be considered antiquated, and the traditional six comprising writs are often called the extraordinary writs and described as extraordinary remedies.
Constructive notice is the legal fiction that signifies that a person or entity should have known, as a reasonable person would have, of a legal action taken or to be taken, even if they have no actual knowledge of it.
A settlement or pre-trial conference is a meeting between opposing sides of a lawsuit at which the parties attempt to reach a mutually agreeable resolution of their dispute without having to proceed to a trial. Such a conference may be initiated through either party, usually by the conveyance of a settlement offer; or it may be ordered by the court as a precedent to holding a trial. Each party, the plaintiff and the defendant, is usually represented at the settlement conference by their own counsel or attorney. Conferences are frequently conducted by a judge or other neutral party, in the form of a mediation.
Admissible evidence, in a court of law, is any testimonial, documentary, or tangible evidence that may be introduced to a factfinder—usually a judge or jury—to establish or to bolster a point put forth by a party to the proceeding. For evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant and "not excluded by the rules of evidence", which generally means that it must not be unfairly prejudicial, and it must have some indicia of reliability. The general rule in evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible and all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible, though some countries proscribe the prosecution from exploiting evidence obtained in violation of constitutional law, thereby rendering relevant evidence inadmissible. This rule of evidence is called the exclusionary rule. In the United States this was effectuated federally in 1914 under the Supreme Court case Weeks v. United States and incorporated against the states in 1961 in the case Mapp v. Ohio, both of which involving law enforcement conducting warrantless searches of the petitioners' homes, with incriminating evidence being described inside them.
An interlocutory appeal, in the law of civil procedure in the United States, occurs when a ruling by a trial court is appealed while other aspects of the case are still proceeding. Interlocutory appeals are allowed only under specific circumstances, which are laid down by the federal and the separate state courts.
Limited jurisdiction, or special jurisdiction, is the court's jurisdiction only on certain types of cases such as bankruptcy, and family matters.
In criminal law, an overt act is the one that can be clearly proved by evidence and from which criminal intent can be inferred, as opposed to a mere intention in the mind to commit a crime. Such an act, even if innocent per se, can potentially be used as evidence against someone during a trial to show participation in a crime. For instance, the purchase of a ski mask, which can conceal identity, is generally a legal act but may be an overt act if it is purchased in the planning of a bank robbery.
An order to show cause is a type of court order that requires one or more of the parties to a case to justify, explain, or prove something to the court. Courts commonly use orders to show cause when the judge needs more information before deciding whether or not to issue an order requested by one of the parties. For example, if a party requests that the court find another party in contempt of an existing court order, the judge will typically issue an "Order to Show Cause Re Contempt" to the party accused of being in contempt of court. At the hearing on the order to show cause concerning contempt the judge will take evidence from both sides concerning the alleged failure to comply with the court order. Appellate courts often issue orders to show cause to lower courts requesting that the lower court explain why the appellant should not be granted the relief requested by the writ or appeal. An order to show cause is always an interim order.
A partial verdict occurs when a judge permits a jury to return verdicts on fewer than all of the counts it has to decide, though it has not yet determined the remainder. The verdicts the jury has reached may or may not be announced immediately. The term may also be used in criminal or civil procedure. In a criminal case, it occurs when the judge or jury finds the defendant guilty or not guilty on some, but not all, of the charges against them.
A specific finding pertains to a type of verdict rendered in a jury trial. A judge may direct questions at the jury to be answered as part of its deliberations. These questions are meant to guide the jury through the facts of the case or the elements of each claim that must be proven. The answers returned by the jury, the specific findings, are then used to resolve the case as a matter of law.
Ancillary administration is "the administration of a decedent's estate in a state other than the one in which she lived, for the purpose of disposing of property she owned there." Another definition is the "administration of an estate's asset's in another state." This is often a necessary procedure in probate, because the decedent may own property in a state other than his domicile, which is subject to the law of the state in which it sits. Generally, an ancillary administration proceeding should commence in any county where the decedent’s had property. While the probate process is governed by state law, each county may have different procedures and customs.
In United States law, a ministerial act is a government action "performed according to legal authority, established procedures or instructions from a superior, without exercising any individual judgment." It can be any act a functionary or bureaucrat performs in a prescribed manner, without exercising any individual judgment or discretion. Under law, this would be classified under the rubric of public policy.
Quasi-criminal means a lawsuit or equity proceeding that has some, but not all, of the qualities of a criminal prosecution. It may appear in either a common law or a civil law jurisdiction. It refers to "a court's right to punish for actions or omissions as if they were criminal".
In haec verba is a phrase in Latin legal usage, that refers to incorporating verbatim text into a complaint, pleading or other instrument. rather than by attaching a copy to the pleading or instrument.
In property law, the phrase exception in deed refers to a statement in a deed of real estate which reserves certain rights to the transferor.
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.
A speaking demurrer is an attempt to use a demurrer to challenge the factual claims of a complaint. Doing so is improper, because a demurrer assumes that all of the complaint's factual claims are true.
The writ of mandate is a type of extraordinary writ in the U.S. state of California. In California, certain writs are used by the superior courts, courts of appeal and the Supreme Court to command lower bodies, including both courts and administrative agencies, to do or not to do certain things. A writ of mandate may be granted by a court as an order to an inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person, both public and private. Unlike the federal court system, where interlocutory appeals may be taken on a permissive basis and mandamus are usually used to contest recusal decisions, the writ of mandate in California is not restricted to purely ministerial tasks, but can be used to correct any legal error by the trial court. Nonetheless, ordinary writ relief in the Court of Appeal is rarely granted.
References
- ↑ Hill, Gerald N.; Hill, Kathleen (2002). The people's law dictionary : taking the mystery out of legal language. New York, NY: MJF Books. ISBN 9781567315530.
- 1 2 Hill, Gerald N.; Hill, Kathleen (2002). The people's law dictionary : taking the mystery out of legal language. New York, NY: MJF Books. ISBN 9781567315530.
- ↑ See Vineet Narain v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 3386.
- ↑ N.Y. Civil Practice Law & Rules (CPLR) Article 78, [on the web at http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/leg/ and go to CVP].
- ↑ Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc.,36Cal.3d171, 180(1989).