Appeal and Appellate Court Decision Essay

For summary judgment to be granted, the movant must show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The appellate standard of review for reviewing summary judgment orders in this case is the de novo standard, as this is a decision regarding “mixed questions of law and fact”. Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554, 562 (6th Cir. 2008).

* 2. newly-discovered evidence which, if introduced at the trial, would probably have produced a

(1) Whether a plaintiff must plead and prove willful and wanton conduct in order to

3. A judge may decide that a case cannot continue on to trial because s/he believes there is no probable cause

What was the ruling of the court at the trial level and briefly explain the trial judge’s decision?

1. In a criminal trial, the defendant must be proven guilty by a preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt?

The question at hand was that how much evidence must an individual, who was already trialed and convicted of a crime, present to a court in order for the court to review his case (“House v Bell”).

Petitioner’s appeal from a denial of that motion was dismissed by the Court of Appeals without any prejudice to relief under the Maryland. The petition for post- conviction relief was dismissed by the trial court; and on appeal the Court of appeals held that suppression of the evidence by the prosecution denied petitioner due process of law and remanded the case for a retrial of the question of punishment, not the question of guilt.

(1) Whether a plaintiff must plead and prove willful and wanton conduct in order to

Issue on appeal: Have Atkins met the necessities of the arson which is identified by the trial court with reference to CALJIC No. 14.80?

When a defendant is accused of greater offenses, he has the right to have the court charge on lesser offenses included in the indictment, when there is a reasonable theory from the evidence that supports the defendant’s theory.

In the case of Dusky v. the United States, the court affirmed that a defendant has a right to a competency evaluation before a trial. The case established that if a defendant is not competent to stand trial, he/she might lack the capacity to assist counsel. The defendant may also lack rational or factual understanding of the

It is the right of the jury to judge what the facts are, what the law

The court ordered a new trial because no amendment was made in respect to the merging of the individual claims into two communal claims. The lack of amendment caused the respondents to suffer prejudice that impeded

Common law also permitted the prosecution to adduce evidence that was relevant to the accused’s guilt of the offence charged,