|
Prejudice (legal Procedure)
Prejudice is a legal term with different meanings, which depend on whether it is used in criminal, civil, or common law. In legal context, "prejudice" differs from the more common use of the word and so the term has specific technical meanings. Two of the most common applications of the word are as part of the terms "with prejudice" and "without prejudice." In general, an action taken ''with prejudice'' is final. For example, "dismissal with prejudice" forbids a party to refile the case and might occur because of misconduct on the part of the party that filed the claim or criminal complaint or also as the result of an out-of-court agreement or settlement. Dismissal "without prejudice" (Latin: ''salvis iuribus'') allows the party the option to refile and is often a response to procedural or technical problems with the filing that the party may correct by filing again. With prejudice and without prejudice Criminal law Depending on the country, a criminal proceeding which ends prem ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Criminal Law
Criminal law is the body of law that relates to crime. It prescribes conduct perceived as threatening, harmful, or otherwise endangering to the property, health, safety, and moral welfare of people inclusive of one's self. Most criminal law is established by statute, which is to say that the laws are enacted by a legislature. Criminal law includes the punishment and rehabilitation of people who violate such laws. Criminal law varies according to jurisdiction, and differs from civil law, where emphasis is more on dispute resolution and victim compensation, rather than on punishment or rehabilitation. Criminal procedure is a formalized official activity that authenticates the fact of commission of a crime and authorizes punitive or rehabilitative treatment of the offender. History The first civilizations generally did not distinguish between civil law and criminal law. The first written codes of law were designed by the Sumerians. Around 2100–2050 BC Ur-Nammu, the N ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Appellate Court
A court of appeals, also called a court of appeal, appellate court, appeal court, court of second instance or second instance court, is any court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal of a trial court or other lower tribunal. In much of the world, court systems are divided into at least three levels: the trial court, which initially hears cases and reviews evidence and testimony to determine the facts of the case; at least one intermediate appellate court; and a supreme court (or court of last resort) which primarily reviews the decisions of the intermediate courts, often on a discretionary basis. A particular court system's supreme court is its highest appellate court. Appellate courts nationwide can operate under varying rules. Under its standard of review, an appellate court decides the extent of the deference it would give to the lower court's decision, based on whether the appeal were one of fact or of law. In reviewing an issue of fact, an appellate court ordina ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Nemo Iudex In Causa Sua
''Nemo judex in causa sua'' (or ''nemo judex in sua causa'') (which, in Latin, literally means "no-one is judge in his own cause") is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest. In many jurisdictions the rule is very strictly applied to any appearance of a possible bias, even if there is actually none: "Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done". This principle may also be called: * ''nemo judex idoneus in propria causa est'' * ''nemo judex in parte sua'' * ''nemo judex in re sua'' * ''nemo debet esse judex in propria causa'' * ''in propria causa nemo judex'' The legal effect of a breach of natural justice is normally to stop the proceedings and render any judgment invalid; it should be quashed or appealed, but may be remitted for a valid re-hearing. The phrase is credited to Sir Edward Coke in the seventeenth century, but has also been attested as early as 1544. See also *''Audi alteram partem'' * Judicial disqu ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Terminate With Extreme Prejudice
Project GAMMA was the name given in 1968 to Detachment B-57, Company E (Special Operations), 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne) (5th SFG(A)) in Vietnam from 1967 to 1970. It was responsible for covert intelligence collection operations in Cambodia. The teams were highly effective at locating Viet Cong operations in Cambodia, leading to their destruction. When assets began to disappear, they identified a South Vietnamese officer as the mole. On the advice of the CIA, they took extrajudicial steps and murdered him. Seven officers and one non-commissioned officer were arrested and tried. When the CIA refused to answer summons for witnesses for national security reasons, the charges were dropped. History Detachment B-57 arrived in South Vietnam in June 1967. On 26 February 1968 it was moved from Saigon to Nha Trang and it received the designation Project GAMMA on 1 April 1968, in conjunction with other special forces units such as Project DELTA (Detachment B-52) and Project SIGMA ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Termination Of Employment
Termination of employment or separation of employment is an employee's departure from a job and the end of an employee's duration with an employer. Termination may be voluntary on the employee's part, or it may be at the hands of the employer, often in the form of dismissal (firing) or a layoff. Dismissal or firing is usually thought to be the employee's fault, whereas a layoff is generally done for business reasons (for instance, a business slowdown or an economic downturn) outside the employee's performance. Firing carries a stigma in many cultures and may hinder the jobseeker's chances of finding new employment, particularly if they have been terminated from a previous job. Jobseekers sometimes do not mention jobs from which they were fired on their resumes; accordingly, unexplained gaps in employment, and refusal or failure to contact previous employers are often regarded as "red flags". Dismissal Dismissal is when the employer chooses to require the employee to leave, us ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Nulla Poena Sine Lege
''Nulla poena sine lege'' (Latin for "no penalty without law", Anglicized pronunciation: ) is a legal principle which states that one cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law. This principle is accepted and codified in modern democratic states as a basic requirement of the rule of law. It has been described as "one of the most 'widely held value-judgement in the entire history of human thought. Requirements In modern European criminal law, e.g. of the Constitutional Court of Germany, the principle of ''nulla poena sine lege'' has been found to consist of four separate requirements: ;''Nulla poena sine lege praevia'': There is to be no penalty without ''previous'' law. This prohibits ex post facto laws, and the retroactive application of criminal law. It is a basic maxim in mainland European legal thinking. It was written by Paul Johann Anselm Ritter von Feuerbach as part of the Bavarian Criminal Code in 1813. ;''Nulla poena sine lege scripta'': There ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
In Camera
''In camera'' (; Latin: "in a chamber"). is a legal term that means ''in private''. The same meaning is sometimes expressed in the English equivalent: ''in chambers''. Generally, ''in-camera'' describes court cases, parts of it, or process where the public and press are not allowed to observe the procedure or process.. ''In-camera'' is the opposite of trial in open court where all parties and witnesses testify in a public courtroom, and attorneys publicly present their arguments to the trier of fact. ''In camera'' hearings during trials Entire cases may be heard ''in-camera'' when, for example, matters of national security are involved. ''In-camera'' review by a judge may be used during otherwise open trials—for example, to protect trade secrets or where one party asserts privilege (such as attorney–client privileged communications). This lets the judge review documents in private to determine if revelation of documents in open court will be allowed. In United States ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Reversible Error
In United States law, a reversible error is an error of sufficient gravity to warrant reversal of a judgment on appeal. It is an error by the trier of law (judge), or the trier of fact (the jury, or the judge if it is a bench trial), or malfeasance by one of the trying attorneys, which results in an unfair trial. It is to be distinguished from harmless errors which do not rise to a level which brings the validity of the judgment into question and thus do not lead to a reversal upon appeal. Reversible error criteria A finding of reversible error requires that one or more of the appellant's "substantial rights" be affected, or the evidence in question be of such character as to have affected the outcome of the trial. (See e.g., Montana Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Bd. v. Crumley's, Inc.', 174 P.3d 948 (Mont. 2008).) The criteria for determining what constitutes a "substantial right" is somewhat vague however, being that it varies from case to case, each presenting a slight ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Plain Error
The scope of review refers generally to the right to have an issue raised on appeal. It entails whether an issue was preserved by or available to an appellant on appeal. Scope of review is to the appellate court what the burden of proof is to the trial court. For example, in the United States, a party can preserve an issue for appeal by raising an objection at trial. Scope of review further relates to matters such as which judicial acts the appellate court can examine and what remedies it can apply. The scope of review for administrative law evolved substantially in the 1970s and 1980s. See also * Standard of review In law, the standard of review is the amount of deference given by one court (or some other appellate tribunal) in reviewing a decision of a lower court or tribunal. A low standard of review means that the decision under review will be varied or ov ... References * {{Law-stub ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Harmless Error
In United States law, a harmless error is a ruling by a trial judge that, although mistaken, does not meet the burden for a losing party to reverse the original decision of the trier of fact on appeal, or to warrant a new trial. Harmless error is easiest to understand in an evidentiary context. Evidentiary errors are subject to harmless error analysis, under Federal Rule of Evidence 103(a) ("Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected.") The general burden when arguing that evidence was improperly excluded or included is to show that the proper ruling by the trial judge may have, on the balance of probabilities, resulted in the opposite determination of fact. In the case of ''Earll v. State of Wyoming'', the Wyoming Supreme Court distinguished between reversible error (which requires a conviction be overturned) and harmless error (which does not), as follows: [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Calderbank V Calderbank
''Calderbank v Calderbank'' 976Fam 93, 9753 All ER 333 (EWCA); was an English Court of Appeal decision establishing the concept of a "Calderbank Offer". A "Calderbank Offer" can often be identified by the disclaimer "without prejudice, save as to costs". Facts After a marriage of 17 years, Mr and Mrs Calderbank separated and filed for divorce Divorce (also known as dissolution of marriage) is the process of terminating a marriage or marital union. Divorce usually entails the canceling or reorganizing of the legal duties and responsibilities of marriage, thus dissolving the ..., which was duly granted. However substantial difficulties arose regarding the division of the matrimonial assets of £78,000, consisting of the £80,000 Mrs Calderbank had previously inherited during the relationship from the estates from the death of both her parents. Complicating matters further, the matrimonial home was registered under only Mr Calderbank's name (for fiscal reasons), and ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Privilege (evidence)
In the law of evidence, a privilege is a rule of evidence that allows the holder of the privilege to refuse to disclose information or provide evidence about a certain subject or to bar such evidence from being disclosed or used in a judicial or other proceeding. There are many such privileges recognised by the judicial system, some stemming from the common law and others from statute law. Each privilege has its own rules, which often vary between jurisdictions. Types One well known privilege is the solicitor–client privilege, referred to as the attorney–client privilege in the United States and as the legal professional privilege in Australia. This protects confidential communications between a client and his or her legal adviser for the dominant purpose of legal advice. The rationale is that clients ought to be able to communicate freely with their lawyers, in order to facilitate the proper functioning of the legal system. Other common forms include privilege against com ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
.jpg "Click for more on -> Appellate Court")
