An Explanation Of The Court Essay

Merit –compare and contrast the role of judges ,lawyers and lay people within the English courts.

When I had told my friends I couldn’t eat breakfast with them on Monday morning they gave me a puzzled look, as we always eat breakfast everyday together. After some confusion I had to tell them sorry I can’t, I have to go to court. I got even more confusion. They probably thought “Oh no what has she done or what happened?” but truth soon be told that I was going there just to watch some court cases. Upon telling them that it was just for an assignment, they all looked relieved that they hadn’t befriended a convict in their first 2 months of college.

A Texas court will likely find that Adam tortuously interfered with Blake’s contract with WP. Under Texas Law, the elements of tortious interference with an existing contract are: “(1) an existing contract subject to interference, (2) a willful and intentional act of interference with the contract, (3) that proximately caused the plaintiff 's injury, and (4) caused actual damages or loss.” Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Fin. Review Servs., Inc., 29 S.W.3d 74, 77 (Tex. 2000). If the other associate can prove proximate causation and actual damages, then Blake’s tortious interference case will likely prevail in a Texas court since Blake’s contract was an existing contract subject to interference and that Adam’s interference had been willful and intentional.

For this criteria I will be producing a written evaluation of the effectiveness of magistrates and juries in the administration of justice in the English legal system.

Mark J. Mcburney (Respondent) V. Nathaniel L Young, 569 US, 12–17. (2013) Argued February 20, 2013—Decided April 29, 2013 in United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

They say justice is blind. Laws are made only to protect the interest of the wealthy. Anyone can become a judge, one does not necessarily have to attend school to do so. These are just a few myths about our judicial system, some of which that hold some truth, and others that are inaccurate. In this paper, I will provide history about the type of court structure in Illinois, the process in which judges and lawyers are selected within the state, and how judges and lawyers are disciplined.

Facts: The respondent Jeffery Landrigan was convicted of murder, during his incarceration he stabbed and killed an inmate. Three years later, Mr. Landrigan escaped prison and killed Chester Dyer. Mr. Landrigan was found guilty of second degree murder, burglary, and felony murder. During the sentencing phase of the trial, Mr. Landrigan counsel attempted to present mitigating evidence to the judge. The mitigating evidence was Mr. Landrigan ex-wife, and birth mother, whom were not allowed to testify. Mr. Landrigan counsel explained to the judge, that his client did not want any testimony from his family. Mr. Landrigan counsel tried to explain the importance of both witness but Mr. Landrigan did not allow him to speak (counsel). The judge asked Mr. Landrigan if he had anything to add before he sentenced him. The defendant said to give him the death penalty. The trial judge sentenced Landrigan to death. After the trial, Landrigan filed a notion, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. Mr. Landrigan petitioned for habeas corpus, challenging the state court for not allowing mitigating evidence to be presented under the death penalty act of 1996.

The United Sates Supreme Court heard Schuette to determine whether an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Michigan, approved and enacted by its voters, was invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which provides: ““No state shall make or enforce any law which shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws. (U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, §1.)

The two basic types of courts in the United States are trial courts and appellate courts. These two types of courts have two entirely different functions. The job of a trial courts is to determine questions of fact. Appeals courts, on the other hand, must determine questions of law. Appellate courts have the right to overrule jury verdicts and judges decisions due to the fact that an appellate court typically concerns itself solely with issues of law. An appeal is not the time to retry the case or to reargue the facts. In civil matters, either party can appeal the decision of the trial court. Usually in criminal matters, however, only the defendant may appeal a criminal conviction and the state is not

Decisions of the Supreme Court can have a huge impact on the country. Through United States history, court decisions have influenced the nation and have totally changed how the government runs things. The United Sates is set up into three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. It is up to the judiciary branch that has the job to interpret the constitution, and often these interpretations change over certain amounts of times. Over the course of America 's history as a fully autocratic nation, the Supreme Court has made some monumental decisions. Three examples of significant cases that have affected the government are Marbury vs. Madison (1803), Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), and Mapp vs. Ohio (1961).

too exact and prosaic a kind to allow of his having any order in his

The courts of the United Kingdom are institutions there are aim justice to all and deliver fair and equal trails. Although ‘fair and equal’ are not always true to some cases along with ‘justice to all’. Never the less either convicting someone for unlawful activity or resolving a civil dispute, the British legal system employs a variety of courts in its application of the law. It much reminds me of my home country the United States the different level of courts I mean. Magistrates courts have the jurisdiction to try minor offences then for more serious offences are referred to the Crown courts. There are also appellate courts, which include the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court; formally known as the House of Lords. To

Throughout the United States there are many different laws among the fifty states that make up this union. The laws are different throughout the states because of the need of the laws. Living in one state and not having the advantages or disadvantages of a law in another state would not be that unfair or unequal. This is true because if you don’t like a law in your state you could always fight it and try to change it or you could always move out of that state and go to one that has the laws that you like.

The Supreme Court has had many different places where it was located over the years. There has been a struggle to find a permanent home for the most powerful court of law. At first, the meetings were in the Merchant Exchange Building in New York City. The court then followed the nation's capitol to Philadelphia in 1790. In 1800 the court again relocated to Washington DC. At first they spent their time meeting in various places. The place to find the Supreme Court now is in Washington DC, on First Street located in Northeast.

The rule of law is a difficult concept to grasp and proves elusive to substantive definition. However, the following work considers the attempts of various social and legal theorists to define the concept and pertinent authorities are considered. Attitudes and emphasis as to the exact shape, form and content of the rule of law differ quite widely depending on the socio-political perspective and views of respective commentators (Slapper and Kelly, 2009, p16), although there are common themes that are almost universally adopted. The conclusions to this work endeavour to consolidate thinking on the rule of law in order to address the question posed in the title, which is at first sight a deceptively simple one.