Federal Court System

Safety Law ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 43-56
Author(s):  
Thomas D. Schneid
Keyword(s):  
Federal Court ◽  
Court System

scholarly journals The Forensic Engineer in State and Federal Court

2014 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard M. Ziernicki
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court System ◽  
Civil Lawsuits ◽  
Forensic Engineering ◽  
And Function

This paper outlines the legal system in the United States, the different types of courts, the differences between criminal and civil law, and the role of forensic engineering experts involved in civil lawsuits. After providing a summary of relevant procedures employed by civil and criminal courts, the paper describes the basic principles and requirements for the selection and work of a forensic engineering expert in both the state and federal court system. This paper outlines the role and function of forensic experts (specifically forensic engineers), in the United States court system. It is not a treatise on the legal system but on the role of experts. The paper presents the requirements typically used in today’s legal system to qualify a forensic engineer as an expert witness and to accept his or her work and opinions. Furthermore, this paper discusses who can be an expert witness, the expert’s report, applicable standards, conducted research, engineering opinions, and final testimony in court — and how those elements fit into the legal system. Lastly, the paper describes the concept of spoliation of evidence.

scholarly journals In the Beginning There Was None: Supreme Court Review of State Criminal Prosecutions

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin C. Walsh
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Structural Relationship ◽  
State Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Court System ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Federal Judiciary ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction ◽  
In The Beginning

This Article challenges the unquestioned assumption of all contemporary scholars of federal jurisdiction that section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized Supreme Court appellate review of state criminal prosecutions. Section 25 has long been thought to be one of the most important provisions of the most important jurisdictional statute enacted by Congress. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave concrete institutional shape to a federal judiciary only incompletely defined by Article III. And section 25 supplied a key piece of the structural relationship between the previously existing state court systems and the new federal court system that Congress constructed with the Act. It provided for Supreme Court appellate review of certain state court decisions denying the federal-law-based rights of certain litigants.

Court on Camera: Television Coverage of Australian Legal Proceedings

2001 ◽  
Vol 100 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-127
Author(s):  
Jane Johnston
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Court System ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
The Past ◽  
Legal Perspective ◽  
International Environment ◽  
The Media ◽  
Television Coverage

Despite widespread legal analysis and critical review over the past 20 years, television access into the Australian court system has been slow and piecemeal, with Australia falling behind Canadian and New Zealand initiatives in this area. A recent major report into camera access in the Federal Court has refocused attention on this area, but analysis continues to be primarily from a legal perspective rather than a media one. This paper considers the televised court coverage in Australia to this point, analyses change in the international environment and suggests possible futures for the televising of Australian courts, while also attempting to lay some foundations for discussion beyond the legal, and into the media, domain.

Diminishing Democracy in Health Policy: Partisanship, the Courts, and the End of Health Politics as We Knew It

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. 757-769
Author(s):  
James A. Morone
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
New Deal ◽  
Affordable Care Act ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
Court System ◽  
New Era ◽  
Health Politics ◽  
Health Care Politics ◽  
Slow Rise

Abstract Despite unprecedented partisanship, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) traced a familiar political arc: a loud debate full of dramatic symbols, a messy legislative process, clashes over implementation, a slow rise in popularity, entrenchment as part of the health care system, and growing support that blocked Congress from repealing. The politics of the ACA looked, from one angle, like a louder version of health politics as usual. But something new was stirring. Opponents pushed the debate outside the elected branches of government and into the courts—a move that reflects past eras of highly racialized conflict. A federal court marked the ACA's tenth anniversary by doing what Congress could not: it struck down the law, although the litigation continues to wend its way through the court system. The ongoing challenge to the ACA rests on a fundamental critique of the entire New Deal dispensation in jurisprudence. The consequence could be a new era in health care politics.

Immigrants in the Federal Court System

2018 ◽  
pp. 248-259
Author(s):  
Amanda Pierson ◽  
Daniel E. Martínez
Keyword(s):  
Federal Court ◽  
Court System

Non-U.S. Citizen Defendants in the Federal Court System

1996 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 259-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Katzenelson ◽  
Kyle Conley ◽  
Willie Martin
Keyword(s):  
Federal Court ◽  
Court System

Public Opinion and the Legislative Process

1946 ◽  
Vol 40 (5) ◽  
pp. 924-935 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank V. Cantwell
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Interesting Case ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
Court System ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Federal Judiciary ◽  
Important Relationship ◽  
The Supreme Court

The rôle played by public opinion in a democracy, particularly as it affects the legislative process, has long been a subject for speculation by political scientists. The advent of controlled quota sampling permits of the study of this important relationship in measurable terms. The object of the present discussion is to trace the interaction of public opinion and the executive and legislative branches of government as they have dealt with a single public question—reorganization of the Supreme Court, as presented to Congress for consideration by President Roosevelt on February 5, 1937. Enlargement of the Supreme Court from nine to fifteen members was the most controversial feature of the general reorganization of the federal judiciary proposed by the President, aimed at speeding up the process of clearing cases through the federal court system, and making the system more “representative” of the wishes of the people.The debate on enlargement of the Supreme Court provides a useful and interesting case study for several reasons. The case as a public issue has a definite beginning and end, ranging from the proposal of the judiciary reform bill by the President on February 5 to the death of Senator Joseph T. Robinson on July 14, 1937. As it was debated by public and legislators, the issue was a relatively clear-cut one, uncomplicated by side issues or utterly foreign events that might have influenced the course of either legislators or the public. Finally, and of decided importance, the American Institute of Public Opinion made weekly measurements of opinion toward the proposal during the entire period that reorganization of the Court was a public question. This permits the correlation of reliable opinion samplings with events in the debate and the observation of their relationship.

scholarly journals Judicial Restoration of Rights as an Auxiliary to the Pardon Power

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 328-334
Author(s):  
JaneAnne Murray
Keyword(s):  
Digital Age ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Court System ◽  
Criminal Records ◽  
Collateral Consequences ◽  
Criminal Convictions

This essay outlines the pressing need for a robust use of pardon power to address the cascading consequences of criminal convictions. It argues that a scalable auxiliary to presidential pardon power is a legislative scheme that harnesses the federal court system to conduct individualized reviews and adjudications of petitions for the restoration of rights. In the digital age, where nothing can be truly forgotten, these judicial certifications of rehabilitation, coupled with clear prohibitions on considering criminal records, are the most effective way to address the profound collateral consequences of criminal convictions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document