Term
|
Definition
Courts at the state and the federal levels. |
|
|
Term
| What are the three levels of the Federal and State Courts? |
|
Definition
Federal Courts and State Courts both have three levels:Limited Courts, General Courts, and Appellate Courts. Both Federal and State courts deals with civil and criminal cases. The highest court is the Supreme Court. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Courts of limited jurisdiction (Lower or inferior courts),
- Courts of general jurisdiction (Major Trial courts),
- Courts of appellate jurisdiction (Intermediate appellate courts, Courts of Last Resort)
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Courts of limited jurisdiction (U.S. magistrate's court),
- Courts of general jurisdiction (U.S. district courts),
- Courts of appellate jurisdiction (U.S. courts of appeals. United States Supreme Court).
|
|
|
Term
| Courts of "Limited Jurisdiction" |
|
Definition
The lower courts. All minor offenses (misdemeanors) are heard in this court. All pre-trail felony cases are processed in this court. They do not have powers that extend to the overall administration of justice. They do not try felony cases. They do not possess appellate authority. |
|
|
Term
| Courts of "General Jurisdiction" |
|
Definition
| These are the trial courts. The major trial courts have the power and authority to try and decide any case including appeals from a lower court. |
|
|
Term
| Courts of "Appellate Jurisdiction" |
|
Definition
| The appeals courts are limited in their jurisdiction to matters of appeal from lower courts and trial courts. They do not retry cases. They review their case and see if the person was granted all his/her rights. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A new trial, on appeal from a lower court to a court of general jurisdiction. Happens when the appellate court reverses a case and sends it back for retrial. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The judges in many lower courts in rural areas, who are typically not lawyers and are locally elected. Most common function was to perform marriages. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Courts in which a full transcript of the proceedings is made for all cases. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A specific jurisdiction served by a judge or court, as defined by given geographical boundaries. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The trial courts of the federal system. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The federal courts of the appellate jurisdiction. There are 13 of these courts. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The highest court of the nation and the court of last resort. Is composed of nine justices, one chief justice and eight associate justices, who serve for life. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Federal lower-court officials whose powers are limited to trying lesser misdemeanors, setting bail, and assisting district courts in various legal matters. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A command to perform a certain duty. Under President John Adams. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
If a conviction appealed from a lower court is affirmed, the conviction remains in force. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A Supreme Court decision that reverses, or overturns, a defendant's conviction or sentence does not necessarily free the appellant or impose a lighter penalty. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Rather, it remands, or returns, the case to the court of original jurisdiction for a proper judgment. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| When an appeal is heard before a full bench of judges |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The court struck down an Ohio law that denied citizens their constitutionally guaranteed right to due process by financially rewarding public officials for successfully prosecuting cases related to Prohibition. Following the adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1919, the Ohio government implemented stringent measures to enforce Prohibition within the state's borders. One law, the Crabbe Act, compensated mayors, justices of the peace, various judges, and other law enforcement officials with additional money beyond their normal pay whenever they arrested, convicted, and fined violators of the Eighteenth Amendment. Many legal officials sought to extend their jurisdiction into nearby cities to arrest and prosecute more violators and to enhance the judges' own paychecks. n North College Hill, Ohio, a man was arrested for illegally possessing alcohol, a violation of the Eighteenth Amendment. This man contended that the law compensating officials with additional money for liquor cases violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by depriving him of "due process of law." The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant (Tumey) over the plaintiff (the state of Ohio). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. In 1994, the United States Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act. That fall, at Virginia Tech, freshman student Christy Brzonkala was allegedly assaulted and raped repeatedly by fellow students Antonio Morrison and James Crawford. During the school-conducted hearing on her complaint, Morrison admitted having sexual contact with her despite the fact that she had twice told him "no."[1] College proceedings failed to punish Crawford, but initially punished Morrison with a suspension (punishment later struck down by the administration). A state grand jury did not find sufficient evidence to charge either man with a crime.[2] Brzonkala then filed suit under the Violence Against Women Act. The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia held that Congress lacked authority to enact the Violence Against Women Act. A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the decision 2–1. The Fourth Circuit reheard the case en banc and reversed the panel, upholding the district court. In a 5–4 decision, United States v. Morrison invalidated the section of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 that gave victims of gender-motivated violence the right to sue their attackers in federal court. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. The landmark decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government. The case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia by President John Adams but whose commission was not subsequently delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force the new Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents. The Court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, found firstly that Madison's refusal to deliver the commission was both illegal and remediable. Nonetheless, the Court stopped short of compelling Madison (by writ of mandamus) to hand over Marbury's commission, instead holding that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that enabled Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court's original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III established. The petition was therefore denied. The real significance of Marbury v. Madison was the establishment of the Court's power to review acts of Congress. |
|
|
