Sua sponte

Last updated

In law, sua sponte (Latin: "of his, her, its or their own accord") or suo motu ("on its own motion") [1] describes an act of authority taken without formal prompting from another party. [2] The term is usually applied to actions by a judge taken without a prior motion or request from the parties. The form nostra sponte ("of our own accord") is sometimes used by the court itself, when the action is taken by a multi-member court, such as an appellate court, rather than by a single judge. (Third parties describing such actions would still refer to them as being taken by the court as a whole and therefore as 'sua sponte'.) While usually applied to actions of a court, the term may reasonably be applied to actions by government agencies and individuals acting in official capacity. [3]

Contents

One situation in which a party might encourage a judge to move sua sponte occurs when that party is preserving a special appearance (usually to challenge jurisdiction), and therefore cannot make motions on its own behalf without making a general appearance. Common reasons for an action taken sua sponte are when the judge determines that the court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction [4] or that the case should be moved to another judge because of a conflict of interest, [5] even if all parties disagree.

Notable cases

Other uses

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Appellate procedure in the United States</span> National rules of court appeals

United States appellate procedure involves the rules and regulations for filing appeals in state courts and federal courts. The nature of an appeal can vary greatly depending on the type of case and the rules of the court in the jurisdiction where the case was prosecuted. 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.

Jurisdiction is the legal term for the legal authority granted to a legal entity to enact justice. In federations like the United States, the concept of jurisdiction applies at multiple levels.

An inquisitorial system is a legal system in which the court, or a part of the court, is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case. This is distinct from an adversarial system, in which the role of the court is primarily that of an impartial referee between the prosecution and the defense. Inquisitorial systems are used primarily in countries with civil legal systems, such as France and Italy, or legal systems based on Islamic law like Saudi Arabia, rather than in common law systems. It is the prevalent legal system in Continental Europe, Latin America, African countries not formerly under British rule, East Asia, Indochina, Thailand, and Indonesia. Most countries with an inquisitorial system also have some form of civil code as their main source of law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Cassation (France)</span> Highest judicial court in France

The Court of Cassation is the supreme court for civil and criminal cases in France. It is one of the country's four apex courts, along with the Council of State, the Constitutional Council and the Jurisdictional Disputes Tribunal.

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. Rules of procedure may allow vacatur either at the request of a party or sua sponte.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oral argument</span>

Oral arguments are spoken presentations to a judge or appellate court by a lawyer of the legal reasons why they should prevail. Oral argument at the appellate level accompanies written briefs, which also advance the argument of each party in the legal dispute. Oral arguments can also occur during motion practice when one of the parties presents a motion to the court for consideration before trial, such as when the case is to be dismissed on a point of law, or when summary judgment may lie because there are no factual issues in dispute.

In law, motu proprio describes an official act taken without a formal request from another party. Some jurisdictions use the term sua sponte for the same concept.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Pakistan</span> Highest authority court of Pakistan

The Supreme Court of Pakistan is the apex court in the judicial hierarchy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, is the act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official or administrative officer. Applicable statutes or canons of ethics may provide standards for recusal in a given proceeding or matter. Providing that the judge or presiding officer must be free from disabling conflicts of interest makes the fairness of the proceedings less likely to be questioned.

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and its relation to preclusion and concurrent jurisdiction.

Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006), is a US Supreme Court case involving the one-year statute of limitations for filing habeas corpus petitions that was established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that if the government unintentionally failed to object to the filing of a petition after the AEDPA limitations period has expired, it is not an abuse of discretion for a district court to dismiss sua sponte the petition on that basis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Montana Supreme Court</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Montana

The Montana Supreme Court is the highest court of the state court system in the U.S. state of Montana. It is established and its powers defined by Article VII of the 1972 Montana Constitution. It is primarily an appellate court which reviews civil and criminal decisions of Montana's trial courts of general jurisdiction and certain specialized legislative courts, only having original jurisdiction in a limited number of actions. The court's Chief Justice and six Associate Justices are elected by non-partisan, popular elections. The Montana Supreme Court meets in the Joseph P. Mazurek Building in Helena, Montana, the state's capital, an international style building completed in 1982 and named in the honor of former Montana Attorney General, Joseph P. Mazurek.

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court determined that the federal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to hear habeas appeals that are filed late, even if the district court said the petitioner had additional time to file.

Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a federal appeals court may not sua sponte increase a defendant's sentence unless the government first files a notice of appeal.

<i>In re Marriage of J.B. and H.B.</i>

In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B. was a case arising from a divorce petition filed by a same-sex couple in Texas. They had been married in Massachusetts. A Texas Family Court granted the petition, holding that Texas's Proposition 2, which prohibited the court from recognizing a same-sex marriage, violated the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. On appeal, the Fifth Court of Appeals of Texas reversed the family court's judgment, holding that it was consistent with the due process and equal protection clauses. The case was before the Texas Supreme Court, but the case was dismissed due to the death of one of the parties.

Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving copyright law. The Court held that failure to register a copyright under Section 411 (a) of the United States Copyright Act does not limit a Federal Court's jurisdiction over claims of infringement regarding unregistered works.

United States v. More, 7 U.S. 159 (1805), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to hear appeals from criminal cases in the circuit courts by writs of error. Relying on the Exceptions Clause, More held that Congress's enumerated grants of appellate jurisdiction to the Court operated as an exercise of Congress's power to eliminate all other forms of appellate jurisdiction.

An in-chambers opinion is an opinion by a single justice or judge of a multi-member appellate court, rendered on an issue that the court's rules or procedures allow a single member of the court to decide. The judge is said to decide the matter "in chambers" because the decision can be issued from the judge's chambers without a formal court proceeding.

Reyes Mata v. Lynch, 576 U.S. 143 (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review the orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals to reject motions to reopen.

A political and constitutional crisis emerged in Pakistan from, 3 April 2022 to 10 April 2022 when, National Assembly's Deputy Speaker Qasim Khan Suri dismissed a no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan during a session in which it was expected to be taken up for a vote, alleging that a foreign country's involvement in the regime change was contradictory to Article 5 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Moments later, Khan stated in a televised address that he had advised President Arif Alvi to dissolve the National Assembly. Alvi complied with Khan's advice under Article 58 of the constitution. This resulted in the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SCP) taking a suo motu notice of the ongoing situation, creating a constitutional crisis, as effectively, Imran Khan led a constitutional coup. Four days later, the SCP ruled that the dismissal of the no-confidence motion, the prorogation of the National Assembly, the advice from Imran Khan to President Arif Alvi to dissolve the National Assembly, and the subsequent dissolution of the National Assembly were unconstitutional, and overturned these actions in a 5-0 vote. The Supreme Court further held that the National Assembly had not been prorogued and had to be reconvened by the speaker immediately and no later than 10:30 a.m. on 9 April 2022.

References

  1. Castaldo, Jennifer S. (2015-03-13). "Civil Litigation: Obtaining appellate review of a sua sponte order". NY Daily Record. Retrieved 2021-08-30.
  2. Milani, Adam A.; Smith, Michael R. (2001). "Playing God: A Critical Look at Sua Sponte Decisions by Appellate Courts". Tennessee Law Review. 69: 245.
  3. Couch, Dick (2013-07-02). Sua Sponte: The Forging of a Modern American Ranger. Penguin. ISBN   978-0-425-25360-1.
  4. Shannon, Bradley (March 2018). "Reconciling Subject-Matter Jurisdiction". Hofstra Law Review. 46 (3).
  5. Abramson, Leslie W. (2007). "Judicial Disclosure and Disqualification: The Need for More Guidance". Justice System Journal. 28 (3): 301–308. doi:10.1080/0098261X.2007.10767849. JSTOR   27977352. S2CID   141823072.
  6. Carlisle v. United States , 517U.S.416 ( Supreme Court of the United States 1996).
  7. Trest v. Cain, 522U.S.87 ( Supreme Court of the United States 1997).
  8. Karachi violence suo motu: Supreme Court to resume proceedings from today – The Express Tribune
  9. SC reserves verdict in POL GST suo motu case | Pakistan Today | Latest news | Breaking news | Pakistan News | World news | Business | Sport and Multimedia
  10. Pakistan court takes suo motu notice of Hazara killings – The Hindu
  11. Daily Times – Leading News Resource of Pakistan
  12. Pak`s CJ takes suo motu notice of illegal CNG licences
  13. The power of suo motu – The Express Tribune
  14. "US Army Rangers". US Army Ranger Association. Retrieved 29 March 2015.