The Legal Reason for Reaching a Decision

The Legal Reason for Reaching a Decision

If a judge agrees with the outcome of the case, but not with the majority`s reasoning, he or she may issue a concurring opinion. Each judge may issue a separate dissenting opinion. In the event of a tie, the decision of the lower court remains valid. This may be the case if one of the nine judges is not involved in a case for any reason (for example, if a seat is vacant or if a judge has had to resign). Expert opinion – A written statement by a judge about a court decision. In an appeal, several opinions can be written. The decision of the court emanates from the majority of the judges and forms the majority opinion. A dissenting opinion disagrees with the majority because of the reasoning and/or legal principles on which the decision is based. A concurring opinion agrees with the Court`s final result, but offers further comments, perhaps because they disagree with how the court reached its conclusion. uphold – The decision of an appellate court not to overturn a decision of a lower court.

Also called „confirm“. Parties who are not satisfied with a lower court`s decision must go to the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case. The main way to ask the court to review is to ask the court to issue a writ of certiorari. This is a request that the Supreme Court orders a lower court to send the case file for review. The Court is generally not required to hear these cases, and it usually does so only if the case may be of national importance, harmonize conflicting decisions in the federal courts and/or have precedential value. In fact, the Court accepts 100 to 150 of the more than 7,000 cases it is asked to consider each year. Typically, the court hears cases decided either before a U.S. court of appeals or before the highest court in a particular state (if the state court has ruled on a constitutional question). Capital Crime – A crime punishable by death. In the federal system, it applies to crimes such as first-degree murder, genocide and treason.

habeas corpus – A brief often used to bring a prisoner to court to determine the lawfulness of his detention. A detainee who wishes to argue that there are insufficient grounds for detention would file an application for habeas corpus. It can also be used to detain a person in court in order to testify or be prosecuted. In a limited decision (5 to 4, for example), a hesitant judge may refuse to consent until he or she has read the dissenting or concurring opinions. In that case, the judge will respond, „I will wait for more writing in this case.“ Or a judge could respond with detailed notes on which parts of the majority argument need to be changed to get their vote. Bail – security for the release of an accused or witness in pre-trial detention (usually in the form of money) to ensure his or her appearance on the agreed day and time. Court – A governmental body empowered to settle disputes. Judges sometimes use the term „court“ to refer to themselves in the third person, as in „the court read the pleadings.“ All opinions of the Court of Justice are normally delivered on the last day of the Court`s term of office (the day in late June/early July when the Court is suspended for the summer).

With the exception of this time limit, there are no rules on when decisions must be made. As a general rule, unanimous decisions are published earlier than those with concurring and dissenting opinions. Although some unanimous decisions are taken as early as December, some controversial opinions, even if they are heard in October, cannot be announced until the last day of the mandate. Case Law – The use of judicial decisions to determine how other laws (e.g. Laws) in a particular situation. For example, a trial court may use an earlier Supreme Court decision that presents similar problems. Case law: Law formed by decisions of judges in other court proceedings in your state. Generally, the jurisprudence of a court superior to your Court of Appeal is called a „precedent“, and the judges of your Court of Appeal should follow these decisions when making their decision on similar issues. In larger states with multiple appellate courts, it`s possible that jurisdiction comes from other courts that aren`t above your court — in which case, it`s optional whether the judges want to follow it or not, but it could help influence their decision. A precedent refers to a judicial decision that is considered an authority to decide subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts or similar legal issues. The precedents are included in the doctrine of stare decisis and require courts to apply the law equally to cases involving the same facts.

Some judges have stated that precedents ensure that people in similar situations are treated equally, rather than on the basis of the personal opinions of a particular judge.

Share this post