What is a case of first impression?! — Binding authority is any source of law that a court must follow when deciding a case. Persuasive authority is when court review persuasive precedents when no binding authority exist.! —Courts can depart from precedents if the precedent is based on a clearly erroneous application of the law. When there is no precedent to base a decision is called first impression.
This is true, but to interpret the laws and judge their constitution are the two special functions of the court. The fact that the courts are charged with determining what the law means does not suggest that they will be justified in substituting their will for that of
The Sixth amendment protects the accused upon the case against him. The Right to Counsel is given to everyone and this constitutional mandate adheres to the constitution. An accused may choose his own if his means permit him to do so. If not, however, and it is upon the court to appoint who shall represent him, the accused has no say of who will be appointed for him since what is contemplated by law is the essence of a competent lawyer’s presence. The right of self-representation may, of course, be opted upon refusal to receive the services of the one appointed by the court, but it shall still be in conformity with the set guidelines for the same right (Tomkovicz,
Where a consequence must be proved then the prosecution has to show that the defendant’s conduct was the factual cause of that consequence, the legal cause of that consequence and that there was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation. Factual causation is established by applying the 'but for' test. This asks 'but for the actions of the defendant, would the consequence have occurred?' and if the answer is no and the consequence would not have occurred then the defendant is liable as it can be said that their action was a factual cause of the consequence. In order for legal causation to be established the question to be asked is whether it is fair to attribute blame to the defendant, if the jury believe the defendant can be blamed for the consequence then he is also the legal cause of the consequence.
Judicial precedent is a statement of law made by judges in the higher courts. It is based on the common law principle Stare Decisis which means to 'stand by the decision'. It was modified by the Supreme Court of Judicature through the Judicature Acts 1973-75. When making a decision, judges look to a judgement which is split into two parts. Ratio Decidendi which is the reason for the decision and Obiter Dicta, anything else said.
Additional requirement for admissibility of multiple hearsay A hearsay statement is not admissible to prove the fact that an earlier hearsay statement was made unless: either of the statements is admissible or all the parties to the proceedings agree; or the court is satisfied that the value of the evidence in question, taking into account how reliable the statements appear to be, is so high that the interests of justice require the later statement to be admissible for that purpose. ‘Hearsay statement’ means a statement, not made in oral evidence, that is relied on as evidence of a matter stated in it. Memory refreshing A witness giving oral evidence in court may use a document to refresh his or her memory, provided that the document was made (or verified) by him at an earlier time, and provided: he states that the document records his recollections of the matter at that earlier time and his recollection of the matter is likely to have been significantly better at the time the document was made, than at the time of his oral evidence. Running head: UNIT 5 ASSIGNMENT 10
Contracts subject to an orally agreed-on condition precedent. As you will read in Chapter 17, sometimes the parties agree that a condition must be fulfilled before a party is required to perform the contract. This is called a condition precedent. If the parties have orally agreed on a condition precedent and the condition does not conflict with the terms of a written agreement, then a court may allow parol evidence to prove the oral condition. The parol evidence rule does not apply here because the existence of the entire written contract is subject to an orally agreed-on condition.
The Supreme Court presides on cases that conflict with the Constitutional laws and with treaties of foreign affairs. The framers of the US Constitution were determined to separate the powers of the federal government into three branches: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The Supreme Court is in the Judicial Branch of government. Once the Supreme Court renders a decision, all other courts in the country follow the precedent set by that decision (Dautrich and Yalof 277). This precedent is also known as Stare
Define the rule of law. * The rule of law is the maxim that an orderly society must be governed by established principles and known codes (the law) that are applied uniformly and fairly to all of its members. To ensure that uniformity and fairness our system is based on “due process,” which means it is in compliance with a fundamental set of ru 3. Define evidence. * Proof, either written or unwritten, of allegations at issue between parties.
Due process is also the law which it is based on that of the idea that at the legal proceedings they can not interfere with that of life, the liberty or that of the property is treated unfairly. You also have the due process in the fifth and the fourteenth amendment that are guaranteed that the person will be able to have notice of the proceedings and that they are given the opportunity to be able to be heard prior to any seizures of , the life, the liberty, and the property. Due process is also the principal that the government must be able to respect that of all of the legal rights that should owed to the people that is according to the law. Due process it is also holds the government to make sure that they are following the law and protecting the individuals from the state. If a person becomes harmed by that of the government they have to follow the law and if they don't follow it will end up as a constitutes of a due process violation that will end up offending against the rule of the law.