who has the power to create all courts lower than the supreme court
36029865
The Chase Court (1864–1873) issued thirty-five opinions in criminal cases over nine years, at a significantly higher rate than the Marshall Court or Taney Court before it. Notable such cases include Ex parte Milligan (1866), Pervear v. Massachusetts (1866), Ex parte McCardle (1867, 1869), Ex parte Yerger (1868), and United States v. Kirby (1868). An array of Reconstruction-era statutes created new federal crimes and new sources of federal jurisdiction to hear criminal cases—both by removal and writs of habeas corpus. Background During the tenure of Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, the fundamental structure of the federal criminal system—arising from the Judiciary Act of 1789—underwent several legislative modifications. According to Wiecek, "[i]n no comparable period of our nation's history have the federal courts, lower and Supreme, enjoyed as great an expansion of their jurisdiction as they did in the years of Reconstruction, 1863 to 1876." First, in 1866, Congress authorized the removal of criminal cases from state courts to federal courts in certain situations (known as "civil rights removal"). The act provided: That the district courts of the United States, within their respective districts, shall have . . . cognizance . . . , concurrently with the circuit courts of the United States, of all causes, civil and criminal, affecting persons who are denied or cannot enforce in the courts or the judicial tribunals of the State or locality where they may be any of the rights secured to them by the first section of this act; and if any suit or prosecution, civil or criminal, affecting persons who are denied or cannot enforce in the courts or the judicial tribunals of the State or locality where they may be any of the rights secured to them by the first section of this act . . . . Second, in 1867, Congress broadened the authority of the federal courts to hear habeas petitions, and authorized the Supreme Court to hear direct appeals from the adjudication of those petitions in the lower federal courts (as an alternative to original habeas). Most notably, the 1867 act extended the power of the federal courts to hear habeas petitions from state prisoners (although the Chase Court heard no such cases). Further, by explicitly providing for appeals from habeas petitions in lower federal courts, the act abrogated the Supreme Court's decision in Barry v. Mercein (1847), which held that such appeals could not be maintained as writs of error under § 22 of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The following year, while Ex parte McCardle was pending before the Supreme Court, Congress repealed the portion of the act that authorized the Supreme Court to hear habeas appeals from the circuit courts. Third, the Judiciary Act of 1869, also known as the Circuit Judges Act, created full-time judges to sit on the circuit courts. While the act did not eliminate the obligation of Supreme Court justices to "ride circuit," or sit as circuit judges, it reduced the practice and accordingly reduced the availability of certificates of division
Criminal law in the Chase Court
9776451
This is a list of cases reported in volume 247 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1918. Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 247 U.S. The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices). Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice). When the cases in volume 247 were decided the Court comprised the following nine members: Notable Case in 247 U.S. Hammer v. Dagenhart In Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918), the Supreme Court struck down a federal law regulating child labor. During the Progressive Era, public sentiment in the United States turned against what was perceived as increasingly intolerable child labor conditions. In response, Congress passed the Keating–Owen Act, prohibiting the sale in interstate commerce of any merchandise that had been made either by children under the age of fourteen, or by children under sixteen who worked more than sixty hours per week. By a 5-4 majority, the Supreme Court struck down the Keating–Owen Act, holding that the Commerce Clause did not give Congress the power to regulate working conditions. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by three other justices, argued that goods manufactured in one state and sold in other states were, by definition, interstate commerce, and so Congress should have power to regulate the manufacturing of those goods. In 1941 Hammer v. Dagenhart was overruled by the Court in United States v. Darby Lumber Co. Citation style Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region. The Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and reassigned the jurisdiction of most routine appeals from the district and circuit courts to these appellate courts. The Act created nine new courts that were originally known as the "United States Circuit Courts of Appeals." The new courts had jurisdiction over most appeals
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 247
9774902
This is a list of cases reported in volume 286 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1932. Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 286 U.S. The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices). Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice). When the cases in volume 286 were decided the Court comprised the following nine members: Notable Case in 286 U.S. Nixon v. Condon In Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73 (1932), the Supreme Court held the all-white Democratic Party primary in Texas unconstitutional. This was one of four cases brought to challenge the Texas all-white Democratic Party primary. All challenges were supported by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). The Court reasoned that because a Texas statute gave the party's executive committee the authority to exclude would-be members of the party – an authority, the Court said, that the executive committee hitherto had not possessed – the executive committee was acting under a state grant of power. Because there was state action, the case was controlled by Nixon v. Herndon (1927), which prohibited state officials from "discharg[ing] their official functions in such a way as to discriminate invidiously between white citizens and black". Federal court system Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region. The Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and reassigned the jurisdiction of most routine appeals from the district and circuit courts to these appellate courts. The Act created nine new courts that were originally known as the "United States Circuit Courts of Appeals." The new courts had jurisdiction over most appeals of lower court decisions. The Supreme Court could review either legal issues that a court of appeals certified or decisions of court of appeals by writ of certiorari. On January 1, 1912, the effective
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 286
3294997
Sheldon v. Sill, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 441 (1850), is a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that Congress may restrict the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts by limiting the subjects those courts may hear, even if those subjects fall within the federal judicial power defined by the United States Constitution. Article III of the Constitution vests "the Judicial Power of the United States...in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish," and extends the jurisdiction of said courts to: all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. Congress exercised its power to "ordain and establish" such inferior Courts, the circuit courts, in the Judiciary Act of 1789. However: The eleventh section of the Judiciary Act, which defines the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts, restrains them from taking 'cognizance of any suit to recover the contents of any promissory note or other chose in action, in favor of an assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the contents, if no assignment had been made, except in cases of foreign bills of exchange' . . . It must be admitted, that if the Constitution had ordained and established the inferior courts, and distributed to them their respective powers, they could not be restricted or divested by Congress. But . . . it has made no such distribution . . . [Consequentially, ] Congress, having the power to establish the courts, must define their [the inferior courts'] respective jurisdictions. In Sheldon, then, the Supreme Court ruled that: Congress may withhold from any court of its creation jurisdiction of any of the enumerated controversies. Courts created by statute can have no jurisdiction but such as the statute confers. No one of them can assert a just claim to jurisdiction exclusively conferred on another, or withheld from all . . . The Constitution has defined the limits of the judicial power of the United States, but has not prescribed how much of it shall be exercised by the Circuit Court; consequently, the statute which does prescribe the limits of their jurisdiction, cannot be in conflict with the Constitution, unless it confers powers not enumerated therein. See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 49 External links Diversity jurisdiction case law United States Constitution Article Three case law United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme
Sheldon v. Sill
9776199
This is a list of cases reported in volume 219 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1910 and 1911. Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 219 U.S. The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices). Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice). When the cases in volume 219 were decided the Court comprised the following nine members: Notable Case in 219 U.S. Bailey v. Alabama In Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 (1911), the Supreme Court struck down the peonage laws of Alabama. The Court held that holding a person criminally liable for accepting money for work not ultimately performed was akin to indentured servitude, outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment, as it required that person to work rather than be found guilty of a crime. Citation style Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region. The Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and reassigned the jurisdiction of most routine appeals from the district and circuit courts to these appellate courts. The Act created nine new courts that were originally known as the "United States Circuit Courts of Appeals." The new courts had jurisdiction over most appeals of lower court decisions. The Supreme Court could review either legal issues that a court of appeals certified or decisions of court of appeals by writ of certiorari. Bluebook citation style is used for case names, citations, and jurisdictions. "# Cir." = United States Court of Appeals e.g., "3d Cir." = United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit "C.C.D." = United States Circuit Court for the District of . . . e.g.,"C.C.D.N.J." = United States Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey "D." = United States District Court for the District of . . . e.g.,"D. Mass." = United States District Court for the
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 219
9878159
This is a list of cases reported in volume 154 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1894; atypically, more than two hundred other Supreme Court opinions from earlier years (1852–1883) also appear within the volume. Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 154 U.S. The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices). Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice). The opinions in cases from 1852–83 in volume 154 were written by various current and former justices. When the cases, from 1894, in the volume were decided the Court comprised the following nine members: Citation style Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region. The Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and reassigned the jurisdiction of most routine appeals from the district and circuit courts to these appellate courts. The Act created nine new courts that were originally known as the "United States Circuit Courts of Appeals." The new courts had jurisdiction over most appeals of lower court decisions. The Supreme Court could review either legal issues that a court of appeals certified or decisions of court of appeals by writ of certiorari. Bluebook citation style is used for case names, citations, and jurisdictions. "# Cir." = United States Court of Appeals e.g., "3d Cir." = United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit "C.C.D." = United States Circuit Court for the District of . . . e.g.,"C.C.D.N.J." = United States Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey "D." = United States District Court for the District of . . . e.g.,"D. Mass." = United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts "E." = Eastern; "M." = Middle; "N." = Northern; "S." = Southern; "W." = Western e.g.,"C.C.S.D.N.Y." = United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York e.g.,"M.D. Ala."
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 154
9774916
This is a list of cases reported in volume 288 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1933. Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 288 U.S. The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices). Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice). When the cases in volume 288 were decided the Court comprised the following nine members: Notable Case in 288 U.S. Louis K. Liggett Company v. Lee In Louis K. Liggett Company v. Lee, 288 U.S. 517 (1933), the Supreme Court held § 5 of the Florida Act, which increased taxes if stores were present in more than one county, was unreasonable and arbitrary and violated the equal protection clause. Justice Brandeis dissented; he agreed with the race to the bottom theory of corporate law, proposed by Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means in The Modern Corporation and Private Property (1932), that state corporate law, and lack of federal standards, enabled a race to the bottom in corporate law rules, or one of "laxity". Brandeis also expounded on evidence that the Great Depression was caused by disparities of income and wealth brought about by the corporation, which he likened to Frankenstein's monster. Federal court system Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region. The Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and reassigned the jurisdiction of most routine appeals from the district and circuit courts to these appellate courts. The Act created nine new courts that were originally known as the "United States Circuit Courts of Appeals." The new courts had jurisdiction over most appeals of lower court decisions. The Supreme Court could review either legal issues that a court of appeals certified or decisions of court of appeals by writ of certiorari. On January 1, 1912, the effective date of the Judicial Code of 1911,
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 288
9878150
This is a list of cases reported in volume 149 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1893. Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 149 U.S. The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices). Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice). When the cases in volume 149 U.S. were decided the Court comprised the following nine members: Notable Cases in 149 U.S. Nix v. Hedden In Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893), the Supreme Court held that under U.S. customs regulations, a tomato should be classified as a vegetable rather than a fruit; the Tariff Act of 1883 used the ordinary meaning of the words "fruit" and "vegetable," instead of the technical botanical meaning. Fong Yue Ting v. United States Fong Yue Ting v. United States, | 149 U.S. 698 (1893), is a decision challenging provisions in Section 6 of the Geary Act of 1892 that extended and amended the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The provisions in question required Chinese in the United States to obtain certificates of residency, and allowed for the arrest and deportation of Chinese who had failed to obtain these certificates, even if they had not violated any other laws. The case involved writs of habeas corpus from Fong Yue Ting and two other Chinese citizens residing in New York City who were arrested and detained for not having certificates. The Supreme Court decided in favor of the United States government, upholding the Geary Act and denying the writs of habeas corpus. Citation style Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region. The Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and reassigned the jurisdiction of most routine appeals from the district and circuit courts to these appellate courts. The Act created nine new courts that were originally known as
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 149
9879752
This is a list of cases reported in volume 182 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1901. Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 182 U.S. The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices). Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice). When the cases in volume 182 were decided the Court comprised the following nine members: Notable Cases in 182 U.S. Insular Cases The Insular Cases are a series of opinions by the Supreme Court in 1901 (the first six opinions in 182 U.S., at pages 1–397, all authored by Justice Henry Billings Brown, along with various concurring and dissenting opinions by other Justices), about the status of U.S. territories acquired in the Spanish–American War, such as the Philippines. The Supreme Court held in the Insular Cases that full constitutional protection of rights does not automatically extend to all places under American control. This meant that inhabitants of unincorporated territories such as Puerto Rico—"even if they are U.S. citizens"—may lack some constitutional rights (e.g., the right to remain part of the United States in case of de-annexation) because they were not part of the United States. Citation style Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region. The Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and reassigned the jurisdiction of most routine appeals from the district and circuit courts to these appellate courts. The Act created nine new courts that were originally known as the "United States Circuit Courts of Appeals." The new courts had jurisdiction over most appeals of lower court decisions. The Supreme Court could review either legal issues that a court of appeals certified or decisions of court of appeals by writ of certiorari. Bluebook citation style is used for case names, citations, and jurisdictions. "# Cir." = United States Court of Appeals
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 182
5858801
The Supreme Court of Louisiana (; ) is the highest court and court of last resort in the U.S. state of Louisiana. The modern Supreme Court, composed of seven justices, meets in the French Quarter of New Orleans. The Supreme Court, and Louisiana state law, are historically based in the colonial governments of France and Spain during the 18th century. The current Supreme Court traces its roots back to these beginnings. French and Spanish colonial government Under the colonial governments of France and Spain, the courts of what is now Louisiana existed in several different forms. In 1712, a charter granted by France created a Superior Council with executive and judicial function which functioned as a court of last resort in both civil and criminal cases. In 1769, Louisiana (New France) became Louisiana (New Spain), and the Superior Council was replaced with the Cabildo. The colonial Governor held the power of final authority in legal cases. Note that the part of today's Louisiana known as the Florida Parishes, the part east of the Mississippi River excepting New Orleans, had a separate and distinct succession of colonial governments beginning in 1763. American territorial government In 1803, Louisiana became a territory of the United States, known as the Territory of Orleans. In 1804, Congress created a three-judge Superior Court for the territory and gave the Legislative Council the power to create other courts. In 1807, the newly-elected Legislative Council created courts in each of the territory's nineteen parishes. These courts were courts of general jurisdiction with an appeal applying to the Superior Court. The Court under the state government of Louisiana Constitution of 1812 In the first Constitution for the state of Louisiana, one Supreme Court was created and the Legislature was given the power to create inferior courts. The number of judges was fixed to be not less than three and not more than five who were to be appointed by the Governor. The Court was required to sit in New Orleans and Opelousas. Constitution of 1845 The 1845 Constitution created a Supreme Court composed of one Chief Justice and three Associate Justices appointed by the Governor to eight-year terms. The Court sat in New Orleans. Constitution of 1852 The 1852 Constitution increased the number of Justices on the Court to five, and all became elected by the people. The Chief Justice was elected at-large by the entire state and the Associate Justices were elected from four districts throughout the state. The Justices served ten-year terms. Constitution of 1864 In 1864, the Justices again became appointed, and their term length was decreased to eight years. Constitution of 1868 The 1868 Constitution did not change the makeup or terms of the Supreme Court, however, it did change and expand its jurisdiction in civil cases to include nearly all types of cases. Constitution of 1879 The post-Reconstruction Constitution of 1879 substantially modified the organization of the Louisiana judiciary. The Constitution created the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, District Courts and Justices of the
Louisiana Supreme Court
6328819
The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC; ) of the Philippines is a constitutionally-created body that recommends appointees for vacancies that may arise in the composition of the Supreme Court, other lower courts, and the Legal Education Board, and in the offices of the Ombudsman, Deputy Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor. History The Supreme Court and other lower courts in the Philippines were established upon the basis of Act No .136 of 1901 of the Philippine Commission. This succeeded the Real Audiencas and lower courts during the Spanish era. At this time, the Supreme Court was appointed by the Philippine Commission. With the approval of the Jones Law in 1916, the justices of the Supreme Court were appointed by the President of the United States, with advice and consent of the United States Senate. Judges of lower courts were then appointed by the Governor-General. Upon the ratification of the 1935 constitution, all justices and judges are appointed by the President of the Philippines with consent of the 21-member Commission on Appointments of the National Assembly of the Philippines. Upon the reestablishment of bicameralism, the Commission on Appointments then had equal number of members (12) from the House of Representatives and Senate. This became the setup until the approval of the 1973 constitution, where the president had the sole power of appointment, with no check and balance from the Batasang Pambansa. With the approval of the 1987 constitution, the Judicial and Bar Council was created to provide a shortlist of nominees on which the president can appoint from. Composition The Council is composed of a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector. They are the "regular" members, as opposed to the Secretary of Justice and a representative of Congress who are the ex officio members. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the ex officio chairman, while the Clerk of the Supreme Court shall serve as the ex officio secretary. The regular members would be nominated by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of four years. However, since the terms will be staggered, the first set of members would a different lengths of service: the representative of the Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the professor of law for three years, the retired Justice for two years, and the representative of the private sector for one year. The succeeding members shall then be given the full four-year term. The Chief Justice is appointed by the president from the shortlist submitted by the JBC. The Secretary of Justice, as a member of the Cabinet, is appointed by the president with advice and consent of the Commission on Appointments. The member of Congress is elected by the chamber where the member came from. The regular members were allowed to be reappointed without limit. The Secretary of Justice serves at the pleasure of the president, while the representative of Congress
Judicial and Bar Council
4376003
United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32 (1812), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that Congress must first enact a constitutional law criminalizing an activity, attach a penalty, and give the federal courts jurisdiction over the offense in order for the court to render a conviction. Facts Barzillai Hudson and George Goodwin, the defendants in the case, were charged with a libel on the President and Congress, and of having accused them of secretly voting to give Napoleon Bonaparte $2 million to make a treaty with Spain. The circuit court was divided on whether it could exercise common law jurisdiction over such cases. Decision Justice William Johnson, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court. He first explained that the federal government is one of limited powers, as set forth in the Constitution. Furthermore, only the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was explicitly defined in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Since the lower federal courts were created by Congress with the Judiciary Act of 1789, their jurisdiction had to be defined by Congress. Therefore, the Court reasoned that since Congress has the power to create such courts, the principles of limited government militate in favor of limiting their jurisdiction to specific acts specified by Congress. The Court held, "The legislative authority of the Union must first make an act a crime, affix a punishment to it, and declare the Court that shall have jurisdiction of the offence." In dicta, he also mentioned an exception to the general rule. Courts have some implied powers, such as punishing litigants for contumacy (contempt of court) and enforcing court orders. Impact The case effectively closed the door on the lower federal courts' powers to convict defendants for common law crimes and mandated Congress to define criminal jurisdiction specifically, through legislation. See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 11 References Gary D. Rowe, The Sound of Silence: United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, the Jeffersonian Ascendancy, and the Abolition of Federal Common Law Crimes, 101 919 (1992). External links Page from History of the U.S. Supreme Court website, explaining the background and context of the case (scroll down to find this case). 1812 in United States case law United States Constitution Article Three case law United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Marshall Court United States Supreme Court criminal cases United States separation of powers case law Federal common law case law Criminal cases in the Marshall Court
United States v. Hudson
62432758
Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 591 U.S. ___ (2020) was a landmark US Supreme Court case involving subpoenas issued by committees of the US House of Representatives to obtain the tax returns of President Donald Trump, who had litigated against his personal accounting firm to prevent this disclosure, although the committees had been cleared by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Mazars was consolidated with Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG (591 U.S. ___, docket 19-760). In a 7–2 decision issued on July 9, 2020, the Supreme Court held that courts must take into account separation of powers in resolving disputes over congressional subpoenas seeking the personal information of the president, and set out a number of factors to consider in evaluating the worthiness of such subpoena requests. The Supreme Court ruled that the lower court had not properly considered the separation of powers concerns; it vacated the lower court's decision and remanded the case back to the Circuit Court for review. The Supreme Court decided that the case raised questions of separation of powers, rather than executive privilege. It also noted that to request presidential documents like tax returns, Congress needs a legislative reason and may not conduct a criminal investigation, which is a power of the executive branch. Before the lower court reviewed the case, the subpoenas in question expired with the end of the 116th Congress on January 3, 2021, and on February 23, 2021, the House Committee in the 117th Congress reissued the subpoena to Mazars for the same documents it had previously sought. Legal scholar Marty Lederman described Mazars as more important than Trump v. Vance, which was decided the same day. Lederman described Trump's argument that Congress entirely lacks "constitutional authority to investigate a sitting President's possible conflicts of interest and violations of law" as an "alarming" assertion that "would, if credited, be a radical departure from our constitutional history and tradition." Background In April 2019, three committees of the US House of Representatives wanted to access the financial records of US President Donald Trump, his children, and affiliated businesses. They regarded attempts at subpoenaing Trump directly as likely to be futile and so issued four subpoenas to third parties. The House Committee on Financial Services subpoenaed Deutsche Bank and Capital One to seek records related to foreign transactions, business statements, debt schedules, statements of net worth, tax returns, and suspicious activity identified by the banks. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence also subpoenaed Deutsche Bank for the same information. The House Committee on Oversight and Reform issued a subpoena to Trump's personal accounting firm, Mazars USA, LLP, demanding financial information pertaining to Trump and several affiliated businesses. Although each of the committees sought overlapping sets of financial documents, all of them supplied different justifications for the requests and explained that the information would help guide legislative reform in areas ranging from money laundering and terrorism to foreign involvement in US elections. Lower courts Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP
Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP
1461682
Discretionary review is the authority appellate courts have to decide which appeals they will consider from among the cases submitted to them. This offers the judiciary a filter on what types of cases are appealed, because judges have to consider in advance which cases will be accepted. The appeals court will then be able to decide substantive cases with the lowest opportunity cost. The opposite of discretionary review is any review mandated by statute, which guides appellate courts about what they can and cannot do during the review process. The advantage to discretionary review is that it enables an appellate court to focus its limited resources on developing a coherent body of case law, or at least it is able to focus on making decisions in a consistent fashion (in jurisdictions where case law is not recognized). The disadvantage is that it reduces the ability of litigants to seek review of incorrect decisions of lower courts. However, the problem with allowing appeals of right through all appellate levels is that it encourages parties to exploit every technical error of each level of the court system as a basis for further review. Discretionary review forces parties to always concentrate their resources on persuading the trial court to get it right the first time around (rather than assuming an appellate court will "fix it later"), thus increasing the overall efficiency of the judicial system. Of course, it also leaves them at the mercy of the discretion of the trial court. Europe Commission on Human Rights The European Commission on Human Rights exercised discretionary review against the petitions it received under the European Convention on Human Rights by rejecting those that it determined were ill-founded and show no apparent violation, which has allowed it to manage its caseload. By doing so, the Commission has evolved from a "service organisation" to a "commonweal organisation", whose decisions create legal precedent. Ireland The 1937 Constitution of Ireland originally provided a right of appeal to the Supreme Court for all cases from the High Court. A 2013 amendment introduced a new Court of Appeal, above the High Court and below the Supreme Court, which is the usual court of final appeal. The Supreme Court now has discretion whether to hear appeals from the Court of Appeal or, exceptionally, directly from the High Court. United States For the Supreme Court of the United States, this discretion is termed the granting of a writ of certiorari ("cert"). This discretion was not granted to the Court until 1891, after its docket became clogged with pro forma appeals from lower courts. The Congress then created the United States courts of appeals system divided into now twelve regional circuits, with the Supreme Court generally only hearing cases from the appellate level or from the highest state court. The Judiciary Act of 1925 further expanded certiorari, authorizing the court to determine any case from a lower level concerning "federal questions of substance". Today, 98 percent of federal cases are decided at the appellate
Discretionary review
9774899
This is a list of cases reported in volume 285 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1932. Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 285 U.S. The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices). Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice). When the cases in volume 285 were decided the Court comprised the following nine members: Notable Cases in 285 U.S. Crowell v. Benson Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22 (1932), is a landmark Supreme Court administrative law decision that outlined the adjudicatory authority of administrative agencies under Article III of the Constitution. The Court held that the United States Employees' Compensation Commission satisfied Fifth Amendment Due Process, and the requirements of Article III with its court-like procedures and because it invests the final power of decision in Article III courts. Smiley v. Holm, Secretary of State of Minnesota Smiley v. Holm, Secretary of State of Minnesota, 285 U.S. 355 (1932), involved a governor's power to veto a congressional redistricting proposal passed by a state's legislature. The Supreme Court unanimously held that the U.S. Constitution did not prohibit a state governor from vetoing his or her state's redistricting map. Federal court system Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region. The Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and reassigned the jurisdiction of most routine appeals from the district and circuit courts to these appellate courts. The Act created nine new courts that were originally known as the "United States Circuit Courts of Appeals." The new courts had jurisdiction over most appeals of lower court decisions. The Supreme Court could review either legal issues that a court of appeals certified or decisions of court of appeals by writ of certiorari. On January 1, 1912, the effective date of the Judicial Code of 1911, the old
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 285
4913027
In most legal jurisdictions, a supreme court, also known as a court of last resort, apex court, and high (or final) court of appeal, is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are binding on all other courts in a nation and are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts. A Supreme Court can also, in certain circumstances, act as a court of original jurisdiction, however, this is typically limited to constitutional law. However, not all highest courts are named as such. Civil law states tend not to have a single highest court. Some federations, such as the United States, also do not have a single highest court. Additionally, the highest court in some jurisdictions is not named the "Supreme Court", for example, the High Court of Australia. On the other hand, in some places the court named the "Supreme Court" is not in fact the highest court; examples include the New York Supreme Court, the supreme courts of several Canadian provinces/territories, and the former Supreme Court of Judicature of England and Wales and Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland, which are all subordinate to higher courts of appeal. The idea of a supreme court owes much to the framers of the Constitution of the United States. It was while debating the division of powers between the legislative and executive departments that delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention established the parameters for the national judiciary. Creating a separate "third branch" of government was a novel idea; in the English tradition, judicial power is just one aspect of the sovereign authority of the Crown. It was also proposed in the Constitutional Convention that the judiciary should have a role in checking the executive power to exercise a veto or to revise laws. In the end, the Framers of the Constitution compromised by sketching only a general outline of the judiciary, vesting of federal judicial power in "one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish". They delineated neither the exact powers and prerogatives of the Supreme Court nor the organization of the Judicial Branch as a whole. Some countries have multiple "supreme courts" whose respective jurisdictions have different geographical extents, or which are restricted to particular areas of law. Some countries with a federal system of government may have both a federal supreme court (such as the Supreme Court of the United States), and supreme courts for each member state (such as the Supreme Court of Nevada), with the former having jurisdiction over the latter only to the extent that the federal constitution extends federal law over state law. However, other federations, such as Canada, may have a supreme court of general jurisdiction, able to decide any question of law. Jurisdictions with a civil law system often have
Supreme court
9776284
This is a list of cases reported in volume 234 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1914. Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 234 U.S. The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices). Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice). When the cases in volume 234 were decided the Court comprised the following nine members: Notable Cases in 234 U.S. Shreveport Rate Cases In the Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S. 342 (1914), the Supreme Court interpreted Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States. The Court held that the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce also allowed it to regulate purely intrastate commerce when control of the former was not possible without control of the latter. Because the Court consolidated several related appeals, they are sometimes collectively known as the "Shreveport Rate Cases" although the Court issued only one ruling. Citation style Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region. The Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and reassigned the jurisdiction of most routine appeals from the district and circuit courts to these appellate courts. The Act created nine new courts that were originally known as the "United States Circuit Courts of Appeals." The new courts had jurisdiction over most appeals of lower court decisions. The Supreme Court could review either legal issues that a court of appeals certified or decisions of court of appeals by writ of certiorari. On January 1, 1912, the effective date of the Judicial Code of 1911, the old Circuit Courts were abolished, with their remaining trial court jurisdiction transferred to the U.S. District Courts. Bluebook citation style is used for case names, citations, and jurisdictions. "# Cir." = United States Court of Appeals e.g., "3d Cir." = United States Court of
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 234
9878200
This is a list of cases reported in volume 171 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1898. Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 171 U.S. The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices). Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice). When the cases in volume 171 were decided the Court comprised the following nine members: Notable Case in 171 U.S. Smyth v. Ames In Smyth v. Ames, 171 U.S. 361 (1898), also called The Maximum Freight Case, the Supreme Court voided a Nebraska railroad tariff law, declaring that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that it took property without due process of law. The Court defined the constitutional limits of governmental power to set railroad and utility rates by stating that regulated industries have the right to a "fair return". Smyth was overturned by the Court in 1944 in Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co.. Citation style Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region. The Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and reassigned the jurisdiction of most routine appeals from the district and circuit courts to these appellate courts. The Act created nine new courts that were originally known as the "United States Circuit Courts of Appeals." The new courts had jurisdiction over most appeals of lower court decisions. The Supreme Court could review either legal issues that a court of appeals certified or decisions of court of appeals by writ of certiorari. Bluebook citation style is used for case names, citations, and jurisdictions. "# Cir." = United States Court of Appeals e.g., "3d Cir." = United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit "C.C.D." = United States Circuit Court for the District of . . . e.g.,"C.C.D.N.J." = United States Circuit Court for
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 171
9774858
This is a list of cases reported in volume 278 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1928 and 1929. Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 278 U.S. The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices). Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice). When the cases in volume 278 were decided the Court comprised the following nine members: Notable Case in 278 U.S. Wisconsin v. Illinois Wisconsin v. Illinois, 278 U.S. 367 (1929), also referred to as the "Chicago Sanitary District Case", is an opinion of the Supreme Court, which held that the equitable power of the United States can be used to impose positive action on one state in a situation in which non-action would result in damage to the interests of other states. The city of Chicago increasingly was diverting Great Lakes waters to carry off sewage through a long-established drainage canal, the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. Illinois claimed that these increasing amounts of diverted water were necessary due to Chicago's growth. Wisconsin, however, claimed that the diversion was lowering lake levels, thereby impairing its transportation facilities and abilities. The Court decided for Wisconsin. In deciding a case between States, the authority of the Court to enjoin a continued wrong being inflicted necessarily includes the authority to require measures to be taken to end the conditions which stand in the way of the execution of the decree. Citation style Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region. The Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and reassigned the jurisdiction of most routine appeals from the district and circuit courts to these appellate courts. The Act created nine new courts that were originally known as the "United States Circuit Courts of Appeals." The new courts had jurisdiction over most appeals of lower court
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 278
9878194
This is a list of cases reported in volume 169 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1898. Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 169 U.S. The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices). Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice). When the cases in volume 169 were decided the Court comprised the following nine members: Notable Cases in 169 U.S. Holden v. Hardy In Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366 (1898), the Supreme Court held that a limitation on working time for miners and smelters was constitutional. The decision stated that the Utah law was a legitimate exercise of the state's police power; that such a law is legitimate if there is indeed a rational basis, supported by facts, for the legislature to believe particular work conditions are dangerous. United States v. Wong Kim Ark United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", is a U.S. citizen. This is due to the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.'" This decision established an important precedent in the interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Citation style Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region. The Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 169
9774865
This is a list of cases reported in volume 279 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1929. Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 279 U.S. The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices). Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice). When the cases in volume 279 were decided the Court comprised the following nine members: Notable Case in 279 U.S. United States v. Schwimmer United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929), concerned a pacifist applicant for naturalization who in the interview declared not to be willing to "take up arms personally" in defense of the United States. Originally found unable by the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to take the prescribed oath of allegiance, a decision reversed on appeal, the case was ultimately argued before the Supreme Court, which ruled against the applicant and so denied her the possibility of becoming a United States citizen. In his dissenting opinion, Justice O.W. Holmes wrote: "The views referred to are an extreme opinion in favor of pacifism and a statement that she would not bear arms to defend the Constitution. So far as the adequacy of her oath is concerned, I hardly can see how that is affected by the statement, inasmuch as she is a woman over fifty years of age, and would not be allowed to bear arms if she wanted to. . . . [I]f there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought -— not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." Citation style Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region. The Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and reassigned the jurisdiction of
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 279
9776504
This is a list of cases reported in volume 253 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1920. Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 253 U.S. The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices). Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice). When the cases in volume 253 were decided the Court comprised the following nine members: Notable Case in 253 U.S. Hawke v. Smith Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920), was a challenge to the constitutionality of a state referendum to overturn the Ohio legislature's vote to adopt the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (the "Prohibition Amendment"). The Supreme Court held that while states may allow their legislatures' actions to be reversed through popular votes, that did not apply to the adoption of federal constitutional amendments since that power was granted to the legislatures by the United States Constitution, and the Constitution did not provide for any role to be played by the people in the consideration of amendments. Citation style Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region. The Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and reassigned the jurisdiction of most routine appeals from the district and circuit courts to these appellate courts. The Act created nine new courts that were originally known as the "United States Circuit Courts of Appeals." The new courts had jurisdiction over most appeals of lower court decisions. The Supreme Court could review either legal issues that a court of appeals certified or decisions of court of appeals by writ of certiorari. On January 1, 1912, the effective date of the Judicial Code of 1911, the old Circuit Courts were abolished, with their remaining trial court jurisdiction transferred to the U.S. District Courts. Bluebook citation style is used for case names, citations, and jurisdictions. "#
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 253
54487968
The judiciary of the Philippines consists of the Supreme Court, which is established in the Constitution, and three levels of lower courts, which are established through law by the Congress of the Philippines. The Supreme Court has expansive powers, able to overrule political and administrative decisions, and with the ability to craft rules and law without precedent. It further determines the rules of procedure for lower courts, and its members sit on electoral tribunals. Below the Supreme Court is the Court of Appeals, which also has national scope with different divisions based in different regions of the country. Decisions from this court can only be appealed to the Supreme Court. Below this level are Regional Trial Courts, which are spread throughout the country among judicial regions. Some of these courts are specialized to deal with certain types of cases. Below these courts are the first level Metropolitan and Municipal Trial Courts, which are located in cities and municipalities throughout the country. Outside of the regular court systems, special courts have been set up to deal with particular cases. These include the Court of Tax Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, which are considered equivalent to the Court of Appeals. In some parts of the country, Sharia courts have been established. Outside of the court system, a number of quasi-judicial bodies have some powers established via law. The Supreme Court was given its expansive powers following a period of martial law, where the Executive dominated. While the Judiciary oversees the other branches of government, judges are appointed to the Judiciary by the President of the Philippines from a shortlist submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council, a body the President can influence. Hierarchy of Courts Supreme Court The Supreme Court (SC) is the highest court of the land and is the court of last resort. It is led by the Chief Justice, who is joined by 14 Associate Justices. The court has expansive powers and a constitutional responsibility to oversee other branches of government, able even to overrule the discretion of political and administrative individuals and bodies. This power is a response to a previous period of martial law during which the courts often declined to act against the Executive. These powers also gave the courts rule-making abilities more typically associated with legislatures. The 1987 constitution gives the Supreme Court "original jurisdiction on cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus". It is the appellate court for cases where "the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question", for the "legality of any tax" and related matters, where the "jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue", "criminal cases where the penalty is reclusión perpetua or higher", and "in which only an error or question of law is involved". Appeals from lower courts are taken on certiorari. Appellate jurisdiction over various matters can be increased by the
Judiciary of the Philippines
45365981
The former Court of Appeals in Cases of Capture, established by resolution of the Continental Congress on January 15, 1780, was the first federal court in the United States. The court had jurisdiction over cases for the capture of enemy ships and cargo. Origin The idea for the Court originated from requests sent by General George Washington during the American Revolution to President of Congress John Hancock, but initially resulted in only the establishment of committees within Congress to exercise such jurisdiction. Upon learning of this deviation from his earlier requests, Washington sent another request to Hancock again asking that Congress establish the Court, but Congress did not fulfill his request until almost four years later. Authority for establishment Although specific express power to establish the Court was granted to Congress in the Articles of Confederation, the Articles of Confederation were not yet fully ratified by all thirteen of the original states when Congress established the Court on January 15, 1780. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress nonetheless had inherent power at that time to establish the Court. Duration The Court operated from shortly after its founding in 1780 through its final cases in 1787. It officially ceased to exist following ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1789 that transferred federal judicial power to the newly created U.S. Supreme Court and such other inferior (i.e., lower) federal courts as Congress may establish. Jurisdiction Beginning with Massachusetts on November 1, 1775, several of the American colonies (and, later, states) established prize courts to exercise original jurisdiction over all cases (or libels) of captures (or prizes) consisting of enemy ships and cargo. Establishment of such courts was recommended by Congress on November 25, 1775. On November 25, 1775, Congress also asserted federal appellate jurisdiction over such cases. After repeated scheduling difficulties when Congress attempted to hear the first appeal, Congress initially assigned that jurisdiction to various special committees, followed by a standing committee on January 30, 1777. Later, on January 15, 1780, Congress established the Court of Appeals in Cases of Capture to exercise that jurisdiction as a court of last resort. On May 24, 1780, Congress transferred all remaining appeals pending before committees to the Court and specified that all future appeals were to be filed directly with the Court. On June 27, 1786, the Court's jurisdiction was again expanded to include rehearings and new trials in certain cases wherever justice so required. Special jurisdiction was also conferred upon the Court on February 11, 1782 for a capture adjudicated by a prize court in Connecticut and on July 24, 1786 for a capture of the sloop Chester. Times and locations of sessions The first session of the Court was required to be held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at the earliest opportunity. Subsequent sessions were to be held at other times and locations in the United States as deemed conducive to the public good, but no farther east than Hartford, Connecticut, and no farther south than Williamsburg, Virginia. Congress later specified
Court of Appeals in Cases of Capture
9774974
This is a list of cases reported in volume 299 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1936 and 1937. Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 299 U.S. The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices). Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice). When the cases in volume 299 were decided the Court comprised the following nine members: Notable Case in 299 U.S. De Jonge v. Oregon In De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937), the Supreme Court held that that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause applies freedom of assembly against the states. The Court found that De Jonge had the right to speak at a peaceful public meeting held by the Communist Party, even though the party generally advocated an industrial or political change in revolution. However, in the 1950s with the fear of communism on the rise, the Court ruled in Dennis v. United States (1951) that Eugene Dennis, who was the leader of the Communist Party, violated the Smith Act by advocating the forcible overthrow of the United States government. Federal court system Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region. The Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and reassigned the jurisdiction of most routine appeals from the district and circuit courts to these appellate courts. The Act created nine new courts that were originally known as the "United States Circuit Courts of Appeals." The new courts had jurisdiction over most appeals of lower court decisions. The Supreme Court could review either legal issues that a court of appeals certified or decisions of court of appeals by writ of certiorari. On January 1, 1912, the effective date of the Judicial Code of 1911, the old Circuit Courts were abolished, with their remaining trial court jurisdiction transferred to the U.S.
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 299
9776442
This is a list of cases reported in volume 245 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1917 and 1918. Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 245 U.S. The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices). Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice). When the cases in volume 245 were decided the Court comprised the following nine members: Notable Cases in 245 U.S. Buchanan v. Warley In Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917), the Supreme Court addressed civil government-instituted racial segregation in residential areas. The Court held that a Louisville, Kentucky city ordinance prohibiting the sale of real property to blacks in white-majority neighborhoods or buildings and vice versa violated the Fourteenth Amendment's protections for freedom of contract. The Court ruled that the motive for the Louisville ordinance, separation of races for purported reasons, was an inappropriate exercise of police power, and its insufficient purpose also made it unconstitutional. Selective Draft Law Cases In the Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court upheld the Selective Service Act of 1917 and more generally upheld conscription in the United States. The Court ruled that conscription did not violate the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude, or the First Amendment's protection of freedom of conscience. Citation style Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region. The Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and reassigned the jurisdiction of most routine appeals from the district and circuit courts to these appellate courts. The Act created nine new courts that were originally known as the "United States Circuit Courts of Appeals." The new courts had jurisdiction over most appeals of lower court decisions. The Supreme Court could review either legal issues that a court of appeals certified or decisions of court of appeals by writ
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 245
9776290
This is a list of cases reported in volume 236 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1915. Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 236 U.S. The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices). Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice). When the cases in volume 236 were decided the Court comprised the following nine members: Notable Cases in 236 U.S. Coppage v. Kansas In Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915), a case relating to United States labor law, the Supreme Court upheld a statute allowing employers to implement so-called "yellow-dog" contracts, which forbade employees from joining unions. The case was decided in an era when, under the legal abstraction of liberty of contract, the Court often invalidated laws restricting employment contracts, while ignoring the reality of disparate power that employers have over employees in imposing contractual terms. Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio In Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 236 U.S. 230 (1915), the Supreme Court held that free speech protections in the Ohio Constitution, which were substantially similar to those in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, did not extend to motion pictures. Citation style Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region. The Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and reassigned the jurisdiction of most routine appeals from the district and circuit courts to these appellate courts. The Act created nine new courts that were originally known as the "United States Circuit Courts of Appeals." The new courts had jurisdiction over most appeals of lower court decisions. The Supreme Court could review either legal issues that a court of appeals certified or decisions of court of appeals by writ of certiorari. On January 1, 1912, the effective date of the Judicial Code of
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 236
9879910
This is a list of cases reported in volume 197 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1905. Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 197 U.S. The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices). Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice). When the cases in volume 197 were decided the Court comprised the following nine members: Notable Case in 197 U.S. Jacobson v. Massachusetts In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), the Supreme Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's opinion, cited in many later cases, articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute, but rather is subject to the police power of the state. Citation style Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region. The Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and reassigned the jurisdiction of most routine appeals from the district and circuit courts to these appellate courts. The Act created nine new courts that were originally known as the "United States Circuit Courts of Appeals." The new courts had jurisdiction over most appeals of lower court decisions. The Supreme Court could review either legal issues that a court of appeals certified or decisions of court of appeals by writ of certiorari. Bluebook citation style is used for case names, citations, and jurisdictions. "# Cir." = United States Court of Appeals e.g., "3d Cir." = United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit "C.C.D." = United States Circuit Court for the District of . . . e.g.,"C.C.D.N.J." = United States Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey "D." = United States District Court for the District of . . . e.g.,"D. Mass." = United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts "E." = Eastern; "M." = Middle; "N." = Northern; "S."
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 197
9879932
This is a list of cases reported in volume 201 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1906. Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 201 U.S. The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices). Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice). When the cases in volume 201 were decided the Court comprised the following nine members: Notable Case in 201 U.S. Hale v. Henkel Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906), is a major Supreme Court decision in which the Court established the power of a federal grand jury engaged in an investigation into corporate malfeasance to require the corporation in question to surrender its records. Citation style Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region. The Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and reassigned the jurisdiction of most routine appeals from the district and circuit courts to these appellate courts. The Act created nine new courts that were originally known as the "United States Circuit Courts of Appeals." The new courts had jurisdiction over most appeals of lower court decisions. The Supreme Court could review either legal issues that a court of appeals certified or decisions of court of appeals by writ of certiorari. Bluebook citation style is used for case names, citations, and jurisdictions. "# Cir." = United States Court of Appeals e.g., "3d Cir." = United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit "C.C.D." = United States Circuit Court for the District of . . . e.g.,"C.C.D.N.J." = United States Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey "D." = United States District Court for the District of . . . e.g.,"D. Mass." = United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts "E." = Eastern; "M." = Middle; "N." = Northern; "S." = Southern; "W." = Western e.g.,"C.C.S.D.N.Y." =
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 201
9774954
This is a list of cases reported in volume 295 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1935. Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 295 U.S. The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices). Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice). When the cases in volume 295 were decided the Court comprised the following nine members: Notable Case in 295 U.S. A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States In A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), the Supreme Court invalidated regulations of the poultry industry according to the nondelegation doctrine and as an invalid use of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. This unanimous decision rendered parts of the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA), a main component of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, unconstitutional. Speaking to aides of Roosevelt afterwards, Justice Louis Brandeis remarked that, "This is the end of this business of centralization, and I want you to go back and tell the president that we're not going to let this government centralize everything". Federal court system Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region. The Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and reassigned the jurisdiction of most routine appeals from the district and circuit courts to these appellate courts. The Act created nine new courts that were originally known as the "United States Circuit Courts of Appeals." The new courts had jurisdiction over most appeals of lower court decisions. The Supreme Court could review either legal issues that a court of appeals certified or decisions of court of appeals by writ of certiorari. On January 1, 1912, the effective date of the Judicial Code of 1911, the old Circuit Courts were abolished, with their remaining trial court jurisdiction transferred to the U.S. District Courts. List
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 295
9774967
This is a list of cases reported in volume 298 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1936. Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 298 U.S. The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices). Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice). When the cases in volume 298 were decided the Court comprised the following nine members: Notable Case in 298 U.S. Carter v. Carter Coal Company In Carter v. Carter Coal Company, 298 U.S. 238 (1936), the Supreme Court interpreted the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which permits the United States Congress to "regulate Commerce... among the several States." Specifically, it analyzes the extent of Congress’ power, according to the Commerce Clause, looking at whether or not they have the right to regulate manufacturing. Federal court system Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region. The Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and reassigned the jurisdiction of most routine appeals from the district and circuit courts to these appellate courts. The Act created nine new courts that were originally known as the "United States Circuit Courts of Appeals." The new courts had jurisdiction over most appeals of lower court decisions. The Supreme Court could review either legal issues that a court of appeals certified or decisions of court of appeals by writ of certiorari. On January 1, 1912, the effective date of the Judicial Code of 1911, the old Circuit Courts were abolished, with their remaining trial court jurisdiction transferred to the U.S. District Courts. List of cases in volume 298 U.S. [a] Brandeis took no part in the case [b] Roberts took no part in the case [c] Stone took no part in the case [d] Hughes took no part in the case [e] VanDevanter took no part in the case
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 298
9878144
This is a list of cases reported in volume 146 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1892. Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 146 U.S. The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices). Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice). When the cases in volume 146 U.S. were decided the Court comprised the following nine members: Notable Case in 146 U.S. McPherson v. Blacker McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892), concerned a law passed in Michigan which divided the state into separate congressional districts and awarded one of the state's electoral votes to the winner of each district. The suit was filed by several of these electors chosen in the 1892 election, including William McPherson, against Robert R. Blacker, the Secretary of State of Michigan. It was the first Supreme Court case to consider whether certain methods of states' appointments of their electors were constitutional. The Court, in a majority opinion authored by Chief Justice Melville Fuller, upheld Michigan's law, and more generally gave state legislatures plenary power over how they appointed their electors. Citation style Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region. The Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and reassigned the jurisdiction of most routine appeals from the district and circuit courts to these appellate courts. The Act created nine new courts that were originally known as the "United States Circuit Courts of Appeals." The new courts had jurisdiction over most appeals of lower court decisions. The Supreme Court could review either legal issues that a court of appeals certified or decisions of court of appeals by writ of certiorari. Bluebook citation style is used for case names, citations, and jurisdictions. "# Cir." = United States Court of Appeals e.g., "3d Cir." = United States Court of Appeals for
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 146
9776481
This is a list of cases reported in volume 252 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1920. Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 252 U.S. The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices). Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice). When the cases in volume 252 were decided the Court comprised the following nine members: Notable Case in 252 U.S. Missouri v. Holland In Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920), the Supreme Court considered the extent to which international legal obligations are incorporated into federal law. The case centered on the constitutionality of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, which prohibited the killing, capturing, and selling of certain migratory birds pursuant to an earlier treaty between the U.S. and the United Kingdom. The state of Missouri challenged enforcement of the Act within its jurisdiction, arguing that the regulation of game was not expressly delegated by the U.S. Constitution to the federal government, and was therefore reserved for the states under the Tenth Amendment. The Court upheld the Act as a valid exercise of the federal government's treaty power, with the supremacy clause of the Constitution elevating treaties above state law. Citation style Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region. The Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and reassigned the jurisdiction of most routine appeals from the district and circuit courts to these appellate courts. The Act created nine new courts that were originally known as the "United States Circuit Courts of Appeals." The new courts had jurisdiction over most appeals of lower court decisions. The Supreme Court could review either legal issues that a court of appeals certified or decisions of court of appeals by writ of certiorari. On January 1, 1912, the effective date of the Judicial Code of
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 252
1459051
The Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China (SPC; ) is the highest court of the People's Republic of China. It hears appeals of cases from the high people's courts and is the trial court for cases about matters of national importance. The court lacks judicial independence and has no power beyond what is granted to it by the National People's Congress (NPC). According to the Chinese constitution, the Supreme People's Court is accountable to the NPC, which prevents the court from functioning separately and independently of the governmental structure. The court has about 400 judges and more than 600 administrative personnel. The court serves as the highest court for the People's Republic of China and also for cases investigated by the Office for Safeguarding National Security in Hong Kong. The special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau have separate judicial systems based on British common law traditions and Portuguese civil law traditions respectively, and are out of the jurisdiction of the Supreme People's Court. History The Supreme People's Court was established on 22 October 1949 and began operating in November 1950. At least four members of the first court leadership did not come from a legal background, and most of its first staff were assigned from the People's Liberation Army to the Court. The functions of the court was first outlined in the Chinese constitution in its 1954 version, which said the court has the power of independent adjudication and is accountable to the National People's Congress. During the Cultural Revolution, the 1975 constitution removed the provision that said courts were to decide cases independently and required them to report to revolutionary committees. Most staff members of the court were sent to the countryside, and the People's Liberation Army occupied the court from 1968 to 1973. Following the end of the Cultural Revolution in 1976, the Supreme People's Court began to focus on legal issues, especially those related to civil and commercial law, because of China's economic liberalization under new leader Deng Xiaoping. The independent power of adjudicate cases returned to the constitution with the 1982 amendment, which explicitly states the courts' right of adjudication cannot be influenced by administrative organs, social organizations and individuals. In 2005, the Supreme People's Court announced its intent to "[take] back authority for death penalty approval" over concerns about "sentencing quality", and the National People's Congress officially changed the Organic Law on the People's Courts to require all death sentences to be approved by the Supreme People's Court on 31 October 2006. A 2008 report stated that since the new review process, the court has rejected 15 percent of the death sentences decided by lower courts. As part of an effort to build judicial credibility through more effective enforcement of court orders, the SPC in 2013 promulgated a blacklist composed of Chinese citizens and companies that refuse to comply with court orders (typically court orders to pay a fine or to repay a loan) despite having the ability to do
Supreme People's Court
70464033
The President of the Constitutional Court of Korea () is the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court of Korea. As presiding judge of Full bench composed of nine Justices, the President represents the Constitutional Court of Korea. The President of the Constitutional Court of Korea is regarded as one of two equivalent heads of judicial branch in Government of South Korea. Another is Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of South Korea. The equivalent status of the President to the Chief is guaranteed by article 15 of Constitutional Court Act. The current President of the Constitutional Court of Korea is Lee Jong-seok Appointment Under chapter 6, article 111(4) of Constitution and article 12(1) of Constitutional Court Act, the President of the Constitutional Court of Korea is appointed by the President of South Korea from among the nine Justices of Constitutional Court, with the consent of the National Assembly of South Korea. Since the President is selected among nine Justices, and the article 112(1) of Constitution states that the 'term of the Justices shall be renewable six years' yet does not precisely state the exact lenghth of a President's term, the Presidents who were newly appointed as both Justice and the President at the same time can serve full six year term, though the Presidents who were appointed while serving as a Constitutional Court Justice can only serve the remainder of their six year term as Justice. It is noteworthy that no President has tried to renew their term because it could harm the independence of the Court and judiciary. Under article 7(2) of Constitutional Court Act, President cannot be older than age 70 as other Justices. Duties The President's main role is participating in judgment of the Court as one of nine Constitutional Court Justices. According to article 22 of Constitutional Court Act, every cases shall be assigned to the Full bench () composed of all nine Constitutional Court Justices in principle. In this case, the President becomes presiding judge following article 22(2) of the Act. However, some cases can be dismissed in pre-trial stage, due to lack of claim upon which relief can be granted. Whether or not to dismiss in pre-trial stage is called 'prior review ()' under article 72(1) and 72(3) of the Act and is decided unanimously by a panel () which consists of three Constitutional Court Justices. As there are three panels in the Court, the President is also part of one panel Another role of the President is to supervise judicial administration inside the Court. Since the Constitutional Court of Korea has no lower courts, as it is designed to be the one and only court to rule on important constitutional cases including judicial review, its volume of administration tasks is smaller than that of Supreme Court Chief Justice. Likewise, the President has no power to intervene in the appointment of other Constitutional Court Justices, while the Supreme Court Chief Justice can intervene in appointments due to his power to recommend candidates for Supreme
President of the Constitutional Court of Korea
19936655
The Supreme Court (, lit. Highest Court, , ) is the supreme court and the third and final instance in all civil and criminal cases in the Kingdom of Denmark. It is based at Christiansborg Palace in Copenhagen which also houses the Danish Parliament and the Prime Minister's office. History The Supreme Court was founded on 14 February 1661 by King Frederik III as a replacement of King Christian IV's King's Court (da. Kongens Retterting). It was based at first Copenhagen Castle later Christiansborg Palace, which was built in its place on the same site at Slotsholmen, and originally consisted of 30 justices. From its foundation and until the adoption of the Constitution of 1849, the court was formally an instrument of the king, only deciding cases by a majority vote in the king's absence, most kings only attended the first meeting each supreme court year. An office as justitiarius to lead the court was instituted as early as 1674 (from 1919 with title of President). As absolute monarch the king retained the inherent power to overrule the court, which happened on one occasion. Aside from this the court routinely exercised the power to commute criminal sentences, a power that was written into the constitution of 1849. After the 1794 Fire of the Christiansborg Palace, the Supreme Court moved first to the Prince's Mansion (da. Prinsens Palæ) until 1854, now housing the National Museum of Denmark, and then to one of the four mansions of Amalienborg Palace (1854–1864), before moving back to Slotsholmen. After the fire of the second Christianborg Palace in 1884 the Supreme Court had to move once again and was based at Bernstorffs Palæ in Bredgade until 1919 when it could move back to the present Christiansborg Palace. Since a rule change in 2007, the court have had a greater focus on test cases that establish precedent. Function The Supreme Court functions as a civil and criminal appellate court for cases from the subordinate courts. Since a decision cannot normally be appealed more than once, District Court cases rarely reach Supreme Court-level, though this may be the case if the independent Appeals Permission Board grants a leave of appeal. Significant civil cases with issues of principle, however, are typically deferred to one of the two Danish High Courts as courts of first instance. In those cases sentences from the Eastern or Western High Courts (Østre Landsret and Vestre Landsret) may be directly appealed to The Supreme Court. As its name indicates, the Supreme Court is the highest Court in the Kingdom of Denmark and its judgments cannot be appealed to another Danish court. It is split into two chambers which both hear all types of cases. A case is heard by at least five judges. In all, the court consists of normally 15 judges and a President. Unlike criminal cases in the lower courts, the Supreme Court does not deal with the issue of guilt. However, the basis on which the lower court reached its verdict may
Supreme Court (Denmark)
54215015
The High Court of Justice of Cantabria (TSJC), is the highest court of the Spanish judiciary in the Autonomous Community of Cantabria. Established pursuant to Title VIII of the Spanish Constitution, it has original jurisdiction over cases against high-ranking officials of the autonomous community and appellate jurisdiction over all cases. The TSJC decisions may be appealed to the Supreme Court. It also has entrusted the resolution of conflicts of competence between courts in Cantabria. The Court has the power of judicial review over norms with lower rank than the law of the regional administrations. As set in the Judiciary Organic Act of 1985, the Court consists of the President of the High Court of Justice, the Chairpersons of the Chambers and an undetermined number of Magistrates. The President has the rank of Magistrate of the Supreme Court and chairs over the Civil and Criminal Law Chamber. He or she is nominated by the General Council of the Judiciary for a tenure of five years. As well as the Supreme Court, each Magistrate of the High Court is nominated by the General Council of the Judiciary and appointed by the Monarch for a lifetime tenure up to the age of 70, when they must retire, although they can request a 2 years extension. History Its most direct antecedent were the old Audiencias Territoriales (Territorial Courts) born in 1812. This territorial courts only had two rooms, one for civil matters and other for criminals. The present High Court of Justice of Cantabria was created in 1985 from article 26 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Power, being constituted on 23 May 1989. Composition The High Court of Justice is composed by three Chambers, one dedicated to the civil and criminal cases, other for the cases against the Public Administrations and other for Labour cases. The number of justices is 11 distributed in the following way: Chamber for Civil and Criminal Law. Three magistrates. Chamber for Administrative Law. Four magistrates. Chamber for Labour Law. Four magistrates. It does exist a fourth chamber, although is not a jurisdictional one. It is the so-called Governing Chamber. This Chamber is formed by 8 justices, four democratically elected by the judges and the other four are members by right: the three presidents of the TSJC' Chambers and the President of the Provincial Court of Cantabria. Its powers are related to the domestic governance of the Court. Headquarters The headquarters of the Court is in the Judicial Complex of Las Salesas, in Santander, the capital of Cantabria. List of presidents Claudio Movilla Álvarez (1989-1997) Francisco Javier Sánchez Pego (1997-2004) César Tolosa Tribiño (2004-2015) José Luis López del Moral (2015-present) See also Judiciary of Spain Superior Court of Justice of Spain Upper Court of Justice of Castile and Leon References Judiciary of Spain Cantabria
High Court of Justice of Cantabria
3790276
The Supreme Court of Canada was founded in 1875 and has served as the final court of appeal in Canada since 1949. Its history may be divided into three general eras. From its inception in 1875 until 1949, the Court served as an intermediate appellate court subject to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Britain. Following 1949, the Court gained importance and legitimacy as the court of last resort in Canada, establishing a greater role for the Canadian judiciary. In 1982, the introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms significantly changed the role of the Court in Canadian society, by providing the Court with greater powers of oversight over Parliament and through formal recognition of civil rights including aboriginal rights and equality rights. Origins Confederation During the Confederation conferences leading to the formation of the Dominion of Canada prior to 1867, it was contemplated that a national court of appeal would be created to sit at the top of the Canadian legal hierarchy, especially to deal with disputes between the provinces and Parliament. However, the subject of the court did not generate much interest during the Confederation Debates. There were some concerns over the establishment of general court of appeal. The largely Anglophone population of Canada West (which became the Province of Ontario) wanted continued oversight by the British Privy Council; while the largely Francophone population of Canada East (which became the Province of Quebec) were concerned about the accessibility of appeals involving travel to London, as well as the effect that a supreme court would have on Quebec civil law and Quebec nationalism more generally. The ambivalent attitude toward the court during the Confederation Debates was displayed by John A. Macdonald (then the attorney general of Canada West and who would become the first Prime Minister of Canada), who was a proponent of strong federal institutions including the Supreme Court, when he said: The Constitution does not provide that such a court shall be established. There are many arguments for and against the establishment of such a court. But it was thought wise and expedient to put into the Constitution a power to the General Legislature, that, if after full consideration they think it advisable to establish a General Court of Appeal from all the Superior Courts of all the provinces, they may do so. When the British North America Act, 1867 was finalized, it provided Parliament with the permissive power ("may") rather than the imperative ("shall") to create a general court of appeal: 101. The Parliament of Canada may, notwithstanding anything in this Act, from Time to Time provide for the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of a General Court of Appeal for Canada, and for the Establishment of any additional Courts for the better Administration of the Laws of Canada. After Confederation in 1867, there was a growing movement to create a final court of appeal for the new country. Nonetheless, it took eight years before the Supreme Court would finally be
History of the Supreme Court of Canada
1635820
Discretionary jurisdiction is a power that allows a court to engage in discretionary review. This power gives a court the authority to decide whether to hear a particular case brought before it. Typically, courts of last resort and intermediate courts in a state or country will have discretionary jurisdiction. In contrast, the lower courts have no such power. For this reason, the lower courts must entertain any case properly filed, so long as the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the questions of law and in personam jurisdiction over the parties to the case. Customarily a court is granted the power by rule, statute, or constitutional provision. When a constitutional provision establishes the court's power, it will have more limitations on its screening process. The usual intent behind granting power through a constitutional provision is to maintain decisional uniformity. The power is coined as “discretionary” because a court may choose whether to accept or deny the petitioner's appeal. Moreover, discretionary jurisdiction is reactive rather than proactive. In other words, appellate courts do not search for cases review. Rather the court's exercise of discretion is in response to a petitioner's appeal of a lower court's decision or in a motion for rehearing made to the intermediate [appellate] court. Moreover, the highest [supreme] court's exercise of discretion is similar to the intermediate court, except that a supreme court will grant review at a much smaller percentage. For example, the United States Supreme Court merely grants review for five percent of its requests for discretionary review. United States Generally, there are three tiers of court at the state and federal levels in the United States: trial, intermediate (appellate) court, and court of last resort (supreme court). This structure creates a two-tier appellate system. The system affords a litigant one appeal as a matter of right after trial. The state's or district's intermediate court will review the first appeal, and after the intermediate court renders a decision, the supreme court will conduct any further review. However, unlike the first appeal, a litigant is not entitled to a successive appeal by the supreme court. Alternatively, in a few cases, those of great importance, such as capital cases, may be appealed directly to the highest court as a matter of right. At either tier, the court has two basic functions: "error correction" and "law declaring." The "error correction" function allows the appellate court to examine the record to determine whether the lower court applied existing law correctly according to the law and applicable procedure. The function affords a litigant a second set of eyes and promotes the court's interest in fairness. It is the job of the lower court to adjudicate a matter in accordance with applicable legal standards. However, oftentimes a litigant will appeal, asserting that while the parties agree on the applicable law, they believe the trial court incorrectly interpreted the existing law or incorrectly applied the existing law to the facts. Thus, if the lower court makes an error, the intermediate or highest
Discretionary jurisdiction
10280782
The Supreme Court of Ghana is the highest judicial body in Ghana. Ghana's 1992 constitution guarantees the independence and separation of the Judiciary from the Legislative and the Executive arms of government. The Supreme Court of Ghana has the final say on legal matters and can overturn lower court decisions. The Court consists of nine justices and hears cases on a wide range of issues, including criminal law, civil law, and administrative law. History The Supreme Court was established by the Supreme Court Ordinance (1876) as the highest tribunal in the Gold Coast (now Ghana) during the colonial era. Until 1960, there was a right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, England. On July 2, 2013, the Supreme Court sentenced the editor of the Daily Search light newspaper, Ken Kuranchie, to 10 days in prison for calling the 9 Justices hypocritical and selective. After the parliament of Ghana passed a bill allowing the cultivation of weed in the country in 2022, the Supreme Court in May 2023 struck out the cannabis cultivation bill by a 5-4 majority. Role and Jurisdiction The Supreme Court of Ghana plays a critical role in the country's legal framework. Its jurisdiction extends to a wide range of matters, including: Constitutional Interpretation: The Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the provisions of the Constitution of Ghana. This is a vital function as it ensures that the Constitution remains a living document that adapts to the changing needs of the nation. Presidential Election Petitions: In the event of disputes arising from presidential elections, the Supreme Court is vested with the power to adjudicate such matters and determine the validity of election results. One of the most notable cases was the 2012 presidential election petition, where the court upheld the election of President John Dramani Mahama. This case demonstrated the court's commitment to ensuring the integrity of Ghana's electoral process. Appellate Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court serves as the highest appellate court in Ghana, hearing appeals from lower courts on a variety of legal issues. Current status The 1992 constitution stipulates that the Supreme Court is made up of the Chief Justice of Ghana and not less than nine other Justices of the Supreme Court. Is the final court of appeal and has jurisdiction over matters relating to the enforcement or the interpretation of constitutional law. The Chief Justice is appointed by the President of Ghana acting in consultation with the Council of State and with the approval of the country's Parliament. The other Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President acting on the advice of the Judicial Council and in consultation with the Council of State. This must also be with the approval of Parliament. The 1992 Constitution abolished all the public tribunals established under the PNDC and created the Regional Tribunal whose chairman was equated with the High Court judges.There is no limit on the number of judges appointed to the Supreme Court. There have been calls for there
Supreme Court of Ghana
1688613
The Supreme Court of Nevada is the highest state court of the U.S. state of Nevada, and the head of the Nevada Judiciary. The main constitutional function of the Supreme Court is to review appeals made directly from the decisions of the district courts. The Supreme Court does not pursue fact-finding by conducting trials, but rather determines whether legal errors were committed in the rendering of the lower court's decision. While the Court must consider all cases filed, it has the discretion to send appeals to the Nevada Court of Appeals for final resolution, as well as the power to determine the jurisdiction of that court. There are seven Justices on the court, who are elected to six-year terms in officially nonpartisan elections and who are not subject to term limits, which were rejected by voters in 1996. The Governor appoints Justices in the case of a vacancy. The most senior justice becomes Chief Justice for a two-year term. History When Nevada was admitted to the federal Union in 1864, three justices were elected to the Supreme Court for a term of six years. This was increased to five justices in 1967, and to seven justices in 1997. Despite experiencing a spectacular population boom in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, Nevada was unable for many years to establish an intermediate appellate court, like the vast majority of U.S. states. Attempts to create one all failed at the ballot box in 1972, 1980, 1992, and 2010. The result was extraordinarily severe congestion at the appellate level, as all appeals must be processed through the state supreme court. The alternative would be to have no right to appeal, since the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that appeal is not a constitutional right, which until the early 2000s was the actual situation in New Hampshire and West Virginia, as well as Virginia until 2023. Nevada, however, has guaranteed its residents a right to appeal since statehood. From the 1980s to the present, Nevada state supreme court justices have been burdened with the highest per-justice caseloads of any state supreme court in the United States. In January 1999, to bring its soaring backlog under control, the Supreme Court of Nevada adopted for the first time a measure that was frequently used by the Supreme Court of California prior to the creation of the California Courts of Appeal in 1904 (and for a few years afterward). The Court divided itself into two three-justice panels which rotate membership every 12 months. The majority of cases are now heard and decided by the three-justice panels, with one panel in Carson City and one panel in Las Vegas. The Chief Justice is the administrative head of the court system, with authority to divide the work of the Supreme Court among the justices, assign district judges to assist in other judicial districts or to special functions, and assign retired judges or justices to appropriate temporary duty. The advantage of this system, of course, is that it is easier and
Supreme Court of Nevada
19932293
The Constitution of Uzbekistan () was adopted on 8 December 1992 on the 11th session of the Supreme Council of Uzbekistan. It replaced the Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan of 1978. It is the supreme law of the Republic of Uzbekistan (Article 15). The Constitution of Uzbekistan contains six parts and it is further divided into 26 chapters. Overview The Constitution of Uzbekistan nominally creates a separation of powers among a strong presidency, the legislature (the Supreme Assembly of Uzbekistan or Oliy Majlis), and a judiciary. The President of Uzbekistan, who is directly elected to a five-year term that can be renewed once, is the head of state and is granted supreme executive power by the constitution. As commander in chief of the armed forces, the President may declare a state of emergency or of war. The President is empowered to nominate a candidate of the prime minister for consideration of chambers of the Oliy Majlis and appoint full cabinet of ministers and the judges of the three national courts, subject to the approval of the Oliy Majlis, and to appoint all members of lower courts. The President also has the power to dissolve the parliament, in effect negating the Oliy Majliss veto power over presidential nominations in a power struggle situation. The 150 deputies to the Legislative Chamber (lower house) of the bicameral Oliy Majlis, the highest legislative body, are elected to five-year terms. The body may be dismissed by the President with the concurrence of the Constitutional Court; because that court is subject to presidential appointment, the dismissal clause weights the balance of power heavily toward the executive branch. The 100-member Senate includes 16 directly nominated by the President. The Oliy Majlis enacts legislation, which may be initiated by the President, within the parliament, by the high courts, by the procurator general (highest law enforcement official in the country), or by the government of the Autonomous Republic of Karakalpakstan. Besides legislation, international treaties, presidential decrees, and states of emergency also must be ratified by the Oliy Majlis. The national judiciary includes the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court, and the High Economic Court. Lower court systems exist at the regional, district, and town levels. Judges at all levels are appointed by the President and approved by the Oliy Majlis. Nominally independent of the other branches of government, the courts remain under the effective control of the executive branch. As in the system of the Soviet era, the procurator general and his regional and local equivalents are both the state's chief prosecuting officials and the chief investigators of criminal cases, a configuration that limits the pretrial rights of defendants. Part I. Fundamental principles Chapter 1 - State Sovereignty - Article 1: Uzbekistan is a sovereign democratic republic. Both names of the state - the Republic of Uzbekistan and Uzbekistan - shall be equivalent. - Article 2: The state shall express the will of the people and serve their interests. State bodies and officials shall be accountable to the society
Constitution of Uzbekistan
22494995
Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (1975), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision. It stated that lawyers engage in "trade or commerce" and hence ended the legal profession's exemption from antitrust laws. Facts In 1971, Ruth and Lewis Goldfarb decided to buy a house in Fairfax County, Virginia. To get a mortgage, they needed to perform a title search on the house, which can only be performed by a lawyer i.e. a member of the Virginia State Bar. Goldfarb contacted a lawyer, who quoted him a price suggested in a minimum-fee schedule published by the Fairfax County Bar Association, which was 1% of the property's value. Goldfarb attempted to find a cheaper quote. He sent 36 letters to other lawyers and received 19 responses, all declining to quote a fee lower than the minimum-fee schedule suggests. Some said that they did not know of any attorney who would do so. Unable to find a lower price, Goldfarb agreed to the 1% quote and subsequently sued both the State Bar and the County Bar alleging that the fee schedule amounted to price-fixing and a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, seeking both injunctive relief and damages. The minimum-fee schedule was a list of prices, suggested by the county bar for various basic legal services, such as wills, marriage contracts, and title searches. The enforcement power lay in the hands of the State Bar, which was the administrative agency used by the Supreme Court of Virginia to regulate the legal profession. Without a license from the State Bar, no one can practice law in Virginia. The State Bar did not compel adherence to this fee schedule, but it had published several reports condoning the practice and had opined that habitual violation of the minimum-fee schedule suggests misconduct on the part of the lawyer. Petitioners' arguments The plaintiffs argued that the minimum-fee schedule created an artificial price floor for title searches in Fairfax County and that, in the absence of this fee schedule, they would have been able to procure a quote lower than the one listed in the schedule. They pointed to the history of Section 1, Sherman Act enforcement. In Addyston Pipe and Steel Company v. United States, Judge Taft created the distinction between naked and ancillary restraints of trade, and the Virginia State Bar's restraints are naked. In United States v. Trenton Potteries, the Supreme Court first established per se illegality of price-fixing because a reasonable price today may become unreasonable tomorrow and the courts cannot be expected to re-confirm every price. The reasonableness of the fees on the minimum-fee schedule is, then, immaterial. And finally, in United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co, Inc., the Court proclaimed, in a famous footnote, that price-fixing need be neither intentional or feasible to be found per se illegal. Hence, the fact that the State Bar's power of compulsion was not absolute does not mean the fee schedule is legal. Respondents' arguments The defendants posed four separate arguments. The
Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar
49652199
The Judiciary of Sierra Leone is the branch of the Government of the Republic of Sierra Leone which interprets and applies the laws of Sierra Leone to ensure impartial justice under law and to provide a mechanism for dispute resolution. The independence of the judiciary is guaranteed by the constitution. The judicial system, headed by the Chief Justice of Sierra Leone, comprises the inferior courts, represented by the Magistrates courts and the Local courts and the superior courts, represented by the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Magistrate's Court A Magistrate's Court exists for each judicial district with limited powers to do what is legally necessary to adjudicate on all civil and criminal matters arising within the district for which it is established. Such jurisdiction is exercised by the Magistrate duly appointed to the court. Local Courts Local courts administer customary law in provincial communities outside the Western Area. The High Court of Justice The High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over all inferior and traditional Courts in Sierra Leone. The High Court consists of the Chief Justice and 9 puisne judges. A High Court hearing is duly constituted by any one judge of the High Court sitting with a jury. The Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal consists of the Chief Justice and not less than seven other justices of the court of appeal or any other judge of the superior court of judicature and the chief justice may preside. An Appeal Court hearing involves at least three justices of the Appeal Court. And the most Senior preside that's coordinate the proceedings. It has jurisdiction throughout sierra Leone to hear and determine appeal from the judgements, orders or directives of the high court of justice. It jurisdiction is therefore limited to just appeals. The Supreme Court The Supreme Court has final jurisdiction in all civil, criminal, and constitutional cases within Sierra Leone and its decisions cannot be appealed. The Supreme Court has the exclusive constitutional power to overturn the rulings of lower courts within the jurisdiction. It also has exclusive original jurisdiction in matters relating to the enforcement or interpretation of any provision of the constitution and on whether an enactment has been made by Parliament or any other authority or person in excess of their power under the Constitution. It consists of the Chief Justice and not less than four other justices. A Supreme Court hearing comprises not less than three justices of the Supreme Court. Courts Martial Courts Martial are empowered to try any person subject to military law, in addition to offences against the general law which are applicable to all persons who join the army. They can convened by the Force Commander or any General, Brigadier or Colonel or Officer of corresponding rank. A Court Martial consists of the President and not less than two other Officers, or in the trial of an Officer or Warrant Officer, no less than five other Officers. Appointment of Judges The Chief Justice and Judges
Judiciary of Sierra Leone
5915064
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation () is a court within the judiciary of Russia and the court of last resort in Russian administrative law, civil law and criminal law cases. It also supervises the work of lower courts. Its predecessor is the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union. According to Article 22 of the Federal Law "On the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation", the permanent residence of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is the city of Saint Petersburg. However, this provision comes into force from the date when the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation begins to function in this city, which is conducted by the President of the Russian Federation in accordance with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Until that date, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation shall exercise its powers in the city of Moscow. Composition There are 115 members of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court judges are nominated by the President of Russia and appointed by the Federation Council. In order to become a judge, a person must be a citizen of Russia, be at least 35 years old, have a legal education, and have at least 10 years of service. The Supreme Court consists of the Judicial Panel for Civil Affairs, the Judicial Panel for Criminal Affairs, and the Military Panel, which deal with respective cases. Those cases in which the Supreme Court is the original jurisdiction are heard by the panels. Appeals of the decisions of the panels are brought to the Cassation Panel. Whereas a panel reviews the decisions of lower courts, an appeal is brought to the Presidium of the Supreme Court. Plenary sessions of the Supreme Court are held at least once every four months. A plenary session must be attended by all judges of the Supreme Court and the Prosecutor General of Russia. At plenary sessions the Supreme Court studies the judicial decisions of lower courts on various topics and adopts resolutions, which establish recommendations on the interpretation of particular provisions of law for lower courts for uniform application. Russian law does not recognize judicial precedent as a source of law, but courts strictly follow such recommendations. The Academic Consultative Council attached to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation () is a body created in order to assist the Supreme Court in various legal and academic matters. It comprises members of the Supreme Court itself, academics, practicing lawyers, and law enforcement officers. The members of the Academic Consultative Council are elected at plenary sessions of the Supreme Court. Powers The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has original jurisdiction in certain cases. Those include: challenging of individual acts of the Federal Assembly and decrees of the President of Russia and the Government of Russia; challenging of delegated legislation of governmental agencies; termination of political parties and all-Russian NGOs; challenging of actions of Central Electoral Commission of Russia when organizing presidential elections, State Duma elections or referendum. The Supreme Court may also hear
Supreme Court of Russia
21172712
Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a prophylactic injunction against non-culpable state executive officials was an overbroad interference by the Federal Courts in the state executive branches. In doing so, the court created a limit on the federal injunctive power in matters of state agency internal affairs. Background In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, plaintiffs sued a number of Philadelphia officials in a § 1983 suit, charging that the police department had engaged in a "pervasive pattern of illegal and unconstitutional mistreatment by police officers." John P. Fullam ordered the defendants, who were supervisors of the Philadelphia Police Department, to submit a "comprehensive program" for the Court's approval, in order to effectively deal with civilian complaints. The decision was subsequently affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. At the Supreme Court In a 5-3 ruling, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal ruling, holding that the case or controversy Article III requirement was lacking, and the lower courts had exceeded their authority under . In discussing the latter, Justice Rehnquist (as he then was) explained that: The District Court's reliance on a statistical pattern to justify its action could not be considered to be the same as the active conduct that had been present in cases such as or . Equitable relief was not available, unlike in , as the responsible authorities were not found to have played an affirmative part in any unconstitutional deprivations. Important principles of federalism militate against the proposition that federal equity power should fashion prophylactic procedures designed to minimize misconduct by a handful of state employees. The Supreme Court cast the case as "a heated dispute between individual citizens and certain policemen ... [that] has evolved into an attempt by the federal judiciary to resolve a 'controversy' between the entire citizenry of Philadelphia and the petitioning elected and appointed officials over what steps might, in the Court of Appeals' words, '[appear] to have the potential for prevention of future police misconduct.'" The court - "express[ing] grave doubts about the justiciability" of the case - held that "the individual respondents' claim to 'real and immediate' injury rests not upon what the named petitioners might do to them in the future -- such as set a bond on the basis of race -- but upon what one of a small, unnamed minority of policemen might do to them in the future because of that unknown policeman's perception of departmental disciplinary procedures. This hypothesis is even more attenuated than those allegations of future injury found insufficient in O'Shea to warrant invocation of federal jurisdiction. Thus, insofar as the individual respondents were concerned, we think they lacked [standing]." Moreover, "appropriate consideration must be given to principles of federalism in determining the availability and scope of equitable relief," the court said; "[w]here, as here, the exercise of authority by state officials is attacked, federal
Rizzo v. Goode
2251732
The , located in Hayabusachō, Chiyoda, Tokyo, is the highest court in Japan. It has ultimate judicial authority to interpret the Japanese constitution and decide questions of national law. It has the power of judicial review, which allows it to determine the constitutionality of any law or official act. History The modern Supreme Court was established in Article 81 of the Constitution of Japan in 1947. There was some debate among the members of the SCAP legal officers who drafted the constitution and in the Imperial Diet meeting of 1946 over the extent of the power of the judiciary, but it was overshadowed by other major questions about popular sovereignty, the role of the emperor, and the renunciation of war. Although the ratified wording in Article 81 states that the court possesses the power of judicial review, a part of the court's early history involved clarifying the extent of this power. In 1948, the court declared that the constitution meant to establish the type of judicial review that was practiced in the United States. In 1952, the power, as the Court held, was clarified to apply only in cases with a concrete case. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Supreme Court experienced a "judicial crisis" between older judges and generally younger, liberal judges. For example, there was controversy when some judges in lower courts were seen as frustrating the implementation of ordinances that would limit anti-government demonstrations. In 1971, the Supreme Court deliberately did not reappoint assistant judge Yasauaki Miyamoto, who participated in a legal organization associated with left-wing ideological leanings. This "Miyamoto Affair" resulted in significant media coverage and protest by other judges. Since then, no judge has failed to be reappointed. Ultimately, the court was reshaped during the 1960s and 1970s to become more conservative, with more representation among the justices from lifetime government employees, which resulted in decisions that tended to limit free expression and public demonstration. Powers and responsibilities Article 81 of the Constitution of Japan defines the Supreme Court as a court of last resort and allows it to conduct judicial review through "the power to determine the constitutionality of any law, order, regulation or official act". In its first role as a court of last resort, the Supreme Court hears civil, administrative, and criminal cases appealed from lower courts. This responsibility and the inability to apply discretion in the appeals it hears results in civil and criminal appeals being a significant majority of its caseload. In its second role, the Supreme Court can exercise its power of judicial review when a concrete legal dispute involving a violation or misinterpretation of the constitution is appealed. The Supreme Court also manages the operation, budget, and personnel of all of Japan's courts. Decisions are made by a regular Conference of the Justices in the Supreme Court and implemented by the Administration Bureau of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, through the office of the General Secretariat, also has extensive control over judicial personnel,
Supreme Court of Japan
38948140
In Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., 338 U.S. 912 (1950), the United States Supreme Court held that denial of a writ of certiorari could not be interpreted as anything other than a signal that fewer than four justices deemed it desirable to review the decision of the lower court. Such a denial indicates nothing about the merits or demerits of a case. Facts of the case Following the murders of two young girls (one in Washington, D.C. and another ten days later in nearby Baltimore, Maryland), there was "widespread and compelling public interest" in the case and "people throughout the City were outraged. Not only were they outraged, but they were terrified." Mr. Connelly of the Baltimore Radio Show announced on the radio that Eugene James had been apprehended and charged with the Baltimore murder and that he had confessed, had a long criminal record, and had gone to the scene, reenacted the crime, and dug up the murder weapon. The trial court inquired whether the broadcast presented a clear and present danger to the administration of justice and concluded that, while it didn't have an effect on the judges in this case, it had an effect on all potential jurors and therefore deprived the defendant of the right to a jury trial. Removal wouldn't have worked, because the broadcast reached everyone in the state. Voir dire wouldn't have worked because it would require defense counsel to ask a potential juror whether he had heard a radio broadcast to the effect that his client had confessed to this crime. Therefore this broadcast was deemed an obstruction of justice. The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the conviction, stating that the power to punish for contempt was limited by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The state petitioned for a writ of certiorari which was denied by the Supreme Court. Majority opinion The denial of certiorari has no other significance than to signal that fewer than four members of the Court deemed it desirable to review a decision of the lower court. This is a matter of “sound judicial discretion.” Considerations for denial of certiorari can be varied. Additionally, dissent on a denial of certiorari should not be read as indicating that only one person thought the petition should be granted. Since reasons can conflict, some have suggested that the Court give reasons for denial. For practical reasons, the Court has chosen not to do so, reasoning that it would take too much time away from its more important duties. See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 338 List of United States Supreme Court cases References External links United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Vinson Court 1950 in United States case law Maryland state case law
Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc.
1709555
The Alaska Court of Appeals is an intermediate court of appeals for criminal cases in the State of Alaska's judicial department (Alaska Court System), created in 1980 by the Alaska Legislature as an additional appellate court to lessen the burden on the Alaska Supreme Court. The court of appeals consists of a chief judge and three associate judges, who are all appointed by the governor of Alaska (see List of governors of Alaska) and face judicial retention elections every eight years; the chief judge of the court of appeals is selected from among the four by the chief justice of the supreme court to serve a two-year term. The court of appeals hears oral argument from lower state trial courts on a regular basis in Anchorage. Appointment and composition All Alaska state court judges are selected in accordance with the Missouri Plan. The governor of Alaska appoints a court of appeals judge from a list of qualified candidates submitted by the Alaska Judicial Council. To be eligible for appointment, a person must be a citizen of the United States and a resident of Alaska for five years prior to appointment. A court of appeals judge must be licensed to practice law in Alaska at the time of appointment and must have engaged in the active practice of law for eight years. The appointed judge must be approved by the voters on a nonpartisan ballot at the first statewide general election held more than three years after appointment; thereafter, each court of appeals judge must participate in another retention election every eight years. Current judges The members of Alaskan Court of Appeals, by order of seniority, include: Jurisdiction The court of appeals has jurisdiction to hear appeals from judgments in criminal cases and certain other quasi-criminal cases in which a minor is accused of committing a crime (juvenile delinquency cases), cases in which prisoners are challenging the legality of their confinement (habeas corpus and post-conviction relief matters), and cases involving probation and parole decisions. Also, a defendant in a criminal case who appeals from district court to superior court can ask the court of appeals to review the resulting decision of the superior court, but the court of appeals may, in its discretion, refuse to hear the appeal. The court of appeals' jurisdiction is therefore over criminal and quasi-criminal matters rather than civil matters; it was created in 1980 to take the burden of these matters from the supreme court, which is therefore able to concentrate on civil matters. However, unlike the Supreme Court of the United States, the Alaska Supreme Court is required to hear appeals in civil cases in the first (and usually last) instance and is not able to exercise its discretion whether to consider appeals previously heard by other appellate courts. Although granting both civil and criminal jurisdiction to the new court of appeals (freeing the supreme court to be purely an appellate court of last resort rather than first instance) had been considered by some proponents
Alaska Court of Appeals
6501931
The Judiciary of Ghana comprises the Superior Courts of Judicature, established under the 1992 Constitution, and the Inferior Courts, established by Parliament. The hierarchy of courts derives largely from British juridical forms. The courts have jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters. Formal Structure of Ghanaian Judiciary The Ghanaian Judiciary is divided into two sections: the Superior Courts of Judicature, and lower level courts or tribunals. The Superior Courts of Judicature are outlined in the Ghanaian Constitution to be the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, and the High Court and Regional Tribunals. There is no formal constitutional structure for the lower level courts and tribunals, as these are established on a case-by-case basis by Parliament. The power of nominations of Justices throughout the Superior Courts of Judicature lies within the hands of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court along with the power of approval by the President. The Supreme Court The Supreme Court is composed of the Chief Justice and at least nine other Justices, but is able to hear cases with at least five Justices sitting at one time. In order for someone to be nominated to the Supreme Court, they must have practiced law for at least 15 years prior to their nomination. In terms of the functions of the court, the Supreme Court is the final court of appeals in all of Ghana and all lower level courts must abide by the decisions by which the Supreme Court comes to. Though past decisions should be taken into account in decision making, the Supreme Court has the right to depart from any past decision in manners it sees fit and thus can change judicial precedent throughout the country. All matters pertaining to the interpretation of the Constitution or evaluating an excess use of power by Parliament or any other authority figure in Ghana falls exclusively within the realm of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Any matters pertaining to the supervision of any lower level courts throughout Ghana will fall solely to the Supreme Court as they have supreme supervisory jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal is composed of the Chief Justice, and no fewer than ten Justices of the Superior Courts, all of which need to practice at least 12 years of law before they are considered for appointment. As of now, there are 31 Justices on the Court of Appeal. Unlike the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal is bound by any previous decision it makes and thus is controlled to certain degree by the precedent that past justices have set. The Court of Appeal is able to hear appeals from lower level Superior Courts and Regional Tribunals on decisions that have been made previously in said courts. The High Court The High Court is made up of the Chief Justice, no less than 20 justices of the High Court, and any other Justice of the Superior Courts who, with consent from the Chief Justice, may sit in on the High Court's
Judiciary of Ghana