The Federal Judicial System

Basically, there are two types of federal courts: constitutional and legislative. Constitutional courts are presided over by the Supreme Court and

Negotiation, mediation, and arbitration are all forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) that are alternatives that organizations use to avoid litigation in court.  According to Valenti Law, negotiation and mediation are forms of non-binding ADR, while arbitration is a binding ADR (2011).  Since arbitration is a binding ADR, the arbitrator’s decisions are legally binding and cannot be challenged by either party in the arbitration.  “There are limited grounds for challenging the decision” (Valenti Law, 2011).

In addition to the contrasts between the state court system and federal court system, there are also similarities which are; the federal district

There are three different tiers within the federal court system. There are only one Supreme Court. It is the highest court in the United States. The lower courts below the Supreme Court can actually have cases roll over to the Supreme Court. Then you have U.S. Courts of Appeals. There are thirteen Appellate courts. The appellate courts deal with making sure the law was applied correctly in trial court. Appellate court doesn’t have a jury all they have is three judges. Then there is District Courts, which there are ninety-four around the country. They try to resolve disputes between people and try to figure out which one if right and wrong. Trail courts have

The judicial branch, or court system, of each state and territory has at least one federal trial court (U.S. District Court) hearing federal cases in that state. Appellate courts sit throughout the country. The U.S. Supreme Court sits in Washington, D.C., and it is the final court of appeal in the United States.

The Federal court system is different series of congressional mandates that have enlarged the federal judicial infrastructure to follow the U.S. Constitution. The State court system, each state has its own court system that pertains to the state laws and follow the constitution. The United States Supreme Court has two main functions that help set the foundation for the courts. The first function is to express, interpret, and to put forward every attachment brought before in proper cases. The second function of the Supreme Court is that it has the power to inspect federal, state, and executive actions to view if it follows the United States Constitution. Each court system has it owns functions but they all have the same thing in common and that is to follow the United States

The federal and state judicial systems are alike and different in numerous of ways. The federal and state judicial system have a difference in some of the laws and court system. There diference are in the jurisdiction and is mostly defined by the kind of cases that take place within the courtroom. State court consists of mainly what we consider as minor criminal activity such as traffic violations, family hearing and disputes, law suits, and robberies most of these are called misdemeanors. Lawsuits verses the United States is not allowed to be heared by the state courts that have certain laws established such as “criminal, antitrust, bankruptcy, patent, copyright, and some maritime cases” (Reuters, 2016). Federal court do not hear as many cases as the state do whereas it has to be listed in the Constitution and provided by Congress. “Federal court can only hear cases that’s within the United States party, conflict of the United States Constitution, citizens cases that so not exceed $75,000, and last but not least bankruptcy, copyright, and patent cases” (Neubauer, 2014). The state and federal courts are established differently whereas the state is established by a state that is within the city or the country and the federal is established under the United States Constitution to better resolve conflict.

Many years ago the federal court system was started (Siegel, Schmalleger & Worrall 2014). We should take a recorded voyage back so as to figure out how the government court system started. Numerous years prior, state courts heard legitimate issues of its natives. The United States Court framework is a covering system of various courts which can, at first look, appear to be puzzling. In any case, a more critical look uncovers a generally basic example to the way courts is organized. Each state and government court framework is partitioned into a few layers, as portrayed underneath. The state courts comprehended that as the country developed; there may be a requirement for more courts. To represent this, the Constitution gave Congress the ability

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is the term used to describe the resolution of disputes inside or outside the legal system, without formal adjudication. It includes arbitration, mediation, conciliation and negotiation. There are problems associated with going to court. These include the adversarial process used to find a winner and loser, which often creates stress for, and increases the division between litigants. The advantages associated with the use of ADR have prompted a debate whether Parliament should make it compulsory for all litigants to first use ADR before they go to court to seek solutions to their differences.

the Federal Courts have three systems in place; trial courts, appellate courts and supreme courts. the trial courts are courts for traffic, juveniles, probate, family law and many more. the appellate courts are set to hear from the trail courts. then the supreme court hears the appeals from the appellate courts and choses which appeal they would like to open. when the federal court and the state court conflict on the point of law. the state of law will be void, states are not allowed to pass any law that is not approved by the federal

The constitution determines how the federal and state courts work(Judicial learning center, 2012). The courts were organized with the aim of protecting state rights and limiting the power of the federal government(Judicial learning center, 2012). The jurisdiction of the courts can be deduced from their names. Federal courts are national in nature while state courts vary according to each state. State courts have general jurisdiction while federal courts have a limited jurisdiction (Judicial learning center, 2012). Federal courts are limited to, handling two types of cases (Judicial learning center, 2012). These are cases concerned with a federal question and those regarding the diversity of citizenship (Judicial learning center, 2012). This means that state courts handle most of the cases in the country. State legislatures make laws which are interpreted by the state courts (Judicial learning center, 2012).

Beyond negotiation and mediation, there are a number of approaches that decrease the personal control the people involved have over the dispute outcome, increase the involvement of external decision makers, and rely increasingly on win-lose and either-or decision-making techniques. These approaches can be divided into public and private, and legal and extralegal.

A potential advantage of ADR is that because parties voluntarily involve themselves in the process, and in most cases agree to the outcome there is rarely a difficulty with enforcement. Enforcement is a much greater potential problem of litigation where a party who has lost in court may be unwilling to meet judgement. At the same time, individuals have pointed to the advantages of the type of settlement which could be achieved by ADR over the costly and divisive nature of litigation.

     Alternative Dispute Resolution or ADR refers to a number of various processes that can be used to resolve legal disputes other than by litigation. Recently, methods of dispute resolution which focus on arbitration, mediation and negotiation as an alternative to adjudication have gained notoriety. This notoriety may have been caused by the public perception that ADR methods are less expensive, more efficient, and more satisfactory than the normal traditional course of litigation. The goals of establishing these processes to resolve disputes as an alternative to more formal legal processes include: 1) to make the regular court system more efficient, less costly and more responsive to the needs of the litigants;

Arbitration is legal technique used to resolve any disputes outside of the courts. Arbitration allows for speedy and cheap resolution of any disputes, the parties involved in a dispute agree to appoint a third person (arbitrator) who will hear their testimonies, and look into the evidence they provide. The arbitrator's decision cannot be challenged in a law court as it is considered final and the parties involved have to accept the decision (Brams & Merrill, 1986). There are only very limited circumstances where the decision of an arbitrator can be challenged, and this is mostly if there can be proof from one of the parties showing that the arbitrator was biased in their decision or ruling. The chosen arbitrator will be an experienced person in the area of the dispute.