An Explanation Of The Court Essay

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.

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.

The Celebrated Cases of Judge Dee is a detective novel about Magistrate Judge Dee, a Confucian scholar, who effectively solves three challenging cases in the early seventh century A.D. The story is set in the Shantung Province during the Tang dynasty, which is seen in the eyes of many Chinese as the most successful of the dynasties, having prevailed for three hundred years under the leadership of Confucian scholars. Chinese society flourished through order and stability resulting from the principal Confucian values of Xiao(filial piety), Ren(benevolence), Yi(justice), Li(proper conduct), and Zhi(wisdom). It was the magistrate 's role to serve the people and ensure a peaceful and orderly community by personally resolving all grievances brought to their attention. Magistrate Judge Dee demonstrated the values of Xiao, Ren and Yi in fulfilling the role of a magistrate by having justice served for all people regardless of their position or social standing.

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

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.

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

When all the tribunals were present, two ballot boxes were placed in the first courtroom, as well as some copper dice in the same color as the court, and the other dice with the name of the presiding officer. Two by the lottery to the judicial council, respectively, to vote two groups of the child. One will be colored into the ballot box, and the other into the name of another executive box. That one officer in the first sign, the other will announce that this person will use the first court assigned to him, the next one assigned to the second court, more than analogy. The purpose of such an approach is to avoid his court being known, and each person can only preside over the court designated by lot.

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

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

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

“Hey Mom? Can I go to the courts to play ball?” My mom does not answer. I look at the small clock on the kitchen counter. Four o’ nine post meridiem. “Creak.” The wooden floor boards receive my weight as I walk slowly. More erupt: “Creak, creak.” I walk up the stairs feeling the smooth painted walls of my home. “Mother?”

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.

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.