The Nigerian And The American Legal Systems

There is such a thing as limited jurisdiction and general jurisdiction. There are reasons courts

In what ways is the indigenous justice paradigm in conflict with the principles of the traditional, adversarial American criminal justice system? In what ways do the principles of Native American justice complement more mainstream correctional initiatives?

Where no legal cases have a direct bearing on the issue of a case, the court should not turn to other disciplines for authority, as if there is no direct bearing then the outcome can be found through the court itself.

The three types of jurisdiction are In Rem which is the courts power to adjudicate rights of all persons with respects to a particular item of property. The second is In personum which is simply personal jurisdiction, this jurisdiction has power over the person of a particular defendant. Lastly there’s Quasi-in-Rem which is the court has power to determine whether particular individuals own specific property within the courts control. Courts can adjudicate disputes other than ownership based upon the presence of the defendant’s property in the

This essay compares the adjudicatory process of two countries: Nigeria and the United States of America in trying civil and criminal cases. For ease of readership, this analysis is conducted in four parts: The first part of the essay describes the American system; the second part describes the Nigerian system; the third part makes a comparative analysis; and the fourth part concludes the essay.

This case was heard in the Victorian Supreme Court. This court is able to exercise original jurisdiction in all criminal matters. Original jurisdiction refers to the Victorian Supreme Court’s authority to hear and determine serious criminal cases for the very first time. Furthermore the Victorian Supreme can appeal criminal cases from lower courts and hear or appeal civil cases.

. . has been said to occur ‘where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the [trial] court,’ or when the court acts ‘without reference to any guiding rules or principles.’ It has also been said to exist when the ruling under consideration ‘appears to have been made on untenable grounds,’ when the ruling is ‘clearly against the logic and effect of facts and inferences before the court,’ when the ruling is ‘clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant of a substantial right and denying a just result,’ when the ruling is ‘violative of fact and logic,’ or when it constitutes an ‘untenable judicial act that defies reason and works an

Original Jurisdiction consists of the judicial system having the authority to observe a case first before further examination of the evidence needing to decide in a higher courtroom setting. The objective here is to see if the evidence is worth sending up to a higher branch within the judicial system courts or for the courts to waive their rights due to speculation opposed to substantial evidence. These courts remain linked to with the Supreme Court, due to the higher level of court cases heard within the setting. For example “Liberty Island, brought about a controversy as to which state the Statue of Liberty belong to New York or New Jersey (The New Jersey Society of Professional Land Surveyors, 2016).”

The American Justice system, to me, is flawed, but I do not feel that it has been neglected. It is a sad truth that there are so many wrongs that occur in a system of corrections. However, I believe that the Justice System is playing “catch up” with society’s rapid acceleration of growth. In the space of just 10 years there has been: The Legalization of Marijuana, Legalization of Gay Marriage, Terror groups and organizations attacking large cities, Rioting has become more common, for instance in Baltimore and Ferguson and, America has become more polarized. The Justice System just cannot maintain the pace. There are also a few things that negatively impacting it and not assisting at all. For one, social media exploding any attack by a police officer has become almost a social norm and I extremely difficult, if not, impossible to incapacitate legally in today’s world. The Justice System are trying, however, and I feel that it will only be a matter of time before it gains ground on society and maintains order once more. There have been advancements in technology to help speed up the process of court hearings and also catching criminals. New organizations have been created to help stop cyber attacks and make it safer. There have been government subsidies given to the Federal Justice System for higher employment and effectiveness of their task forces. Therefore, I do not believe that it is a case of neglect affecting this country, instead, a negative impact of society’s rapid

Officers in a Texas McDonald’s parking lot saw a black man and a white man in the process of exchanging seats on a road trip from Florida to California, while leaving the parking lot; the officer implied that the man driving did not use his right turn signal. The men alleged that their privacy was invaded when the vehicle was searched without a warrant or permission from the driver. When one of the men attempted to video tape the incident on a cell phone he was told to stop. The term “driving while black has been used to describe the practice of law enforcement officers to stop African American drivers without probable cause” (Weatherspoon, 2004). The United States Justice System is based upon a flawed designed through miseducation of students in the school system, maintaining of a slave mentally in the prison system, and the perceptions of African Americans in America.

Original jurisdiction refers to where the case starts. Appellate jurisdiction means that the court reviews the decision from the other court. Meaning, if you are prosecuted for a crime, the court where the trial would be held, has the original jurisdiction. Furthermore, the US Supreme Court generally is a court of an appellate jurisdiction, but it does have original jurisdiction for cases regarding ambassadors, or other public ministers. The court that reviews the decision of the trial from the lower court, would have appellate jurisdiction. Moreover, if you lose in court you can ask a higher court, an appellate court to consider whether or not your trial followed the law correctly. If you lose in the appellate court you can ask the highest court in the land which is the United States Supreme Court. Genuine jurisdiction is different entirely from special jurisdiction. General jurisdiction has the power of the court to hear only certain types of cases, and if the amount of controversy is below a certain amount, is more times than less subject to exceptions. Courts of the general jurisdiction are often called District Courts or Superior Courts. Jurisdiction may also be referred to the origin of the court's authority. A court may be designated either as a court of general jurisdiction or as a court of special jurisdiction. A court of general

What have we learned about American courts and substantive law? We have learned that there are many parts of the American courts. Each court has its own responsibility, in this paper I will specify all of the responsibilities and the courts, state and federal, I will also identify the difference between them for better understanding. Furthermore I will continue to go into detail and state what I have learned about American courts and substantive law.

Lower courts now have the ability to hear cases. This authority, known as jurisdiction, was granted to them by the Supreme Court. Jurisdiction also refers to the territory that a court can exercise its power. This factor also determines its other definition, the ability of a court to hear a case (Legal Information Institute, 2015). There are two components of jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and subject matter jurisdiction. Both elements are mandatory for a court to preside over a particular case. This essay defines the two elements giving the requirements of personal jurisdiction in a federal court and further explains the three different types of personal jurisdiction.

In a case there are three sides, the defendants, the plaintiffs and the truth. Often times the truth may be hard to find but when it is available, justice should be served. That is where the justice system comes in and their job is suppose to allow justice to be served. Over the years, the criminal justice system has lacked in that area according to almost half of the United States citizens. Many may ask the question, "why?", but there is no definite answer for why the justice system has lacked in its area of justice. The real question is, "how?" How can this be changed? That is the question many American Citizens are asking. The American justice system is lacking in the area of justice in many ways. The United States has a Constitution that protects its citizens from abuse in the criminal justice system. The right to a trial, to fair treatment by law enforcement are enshrined. Importantly, the Eighth Amendment also protects those convicted from cruel and unusual punishment. In spite of all this, the American penal system is broken in many ways. Examples of this happening throughout the United States are unfair punishments, prison health care and sentencing young children life in prison without parole.

Nowadays every legal system wants to achieve justice. Different legal traditions in the world have given a different meaning of this concept by following one of the two legal systems: a civil law system and a common law system. The civil law system emerged from Roman law and throughout many centuries has been developed in continental Europe and often is called a “continental legal system”, achieving its prominence through development of aqui communitare in Europe. The common law system emerged in England during the Anglo-Saxon period and was developed by British colonies, reaching its peak in the United Kingdom and the United States of America.