In some countries, the prosecution is required, however, there are legal (sort of common law) which is optional. On the other hand, in some jurisdictions, even criminal action may be brought by an individual: it may be the victim of crime, thereby acting inir own interests, or people's shares; in any case, under the laws existing individuals usually have only a supplementary or complementary role with respect to public prosecutor (civil maritime litigation).
This rule is that courts make decisions consistent with previous decisions. Although less important in countries with a civil law tradition of rights, the rule of precedent there is also the form of respect for precedent. In this context, the principle of legal certainty, that law must be known and accessible to all, require that law is effectively enforced.
In their decisions, the common law courts regularly cite many previous decisions on which they claim to base their decisions, far more than the law itself. The rule of precedent is almost always requires lower courts in decisions during their calls.
The legal relationship that develops as a result of conducting the case and is the ratio between actor (in a criminal trial the prosecutor), the defendant (the accused in a criminal trial) and judge; it generates powers, duties and, according to some authors, including personal rights and obligations for these individuals. The exercise of powers and discharging the burden determines the chain of acts which is embodied in process (process).
In United States, the previous decisions of Supreme Court United States is required (bind) in principle to all other courses that are covered by a federal or state. Lower in hierarchy, the courts theoretically comply with jurisprudence of Court Appeal (the district court comply with decisions of Federal Court Appeal from the United States which they depend, and district court as a court appeal respect the decisions of Supreme Court.
There are, however, ideas that go even further in division between action and substantive law, stating that action is simply due to every citizen the right to sue in courts, regardless of merits of claim that this is done worth. The title of action can be attributed to: subject to holder of substantive law that action is intended to achieve, which acts therefore in his interest. To a public body, the public prosecutor, acting in public interest and to anyone in public interest to which it belongs (action).
The relief sought, that is what actor apply to court, intended as a judicial decision (immediate relief sought) or good in life and in this way seeks to achieve (this request was mediated). The cause of action, ie the title, giving rise to substantive law under which it is asked for the relief sought. These concepts, prepared with reference to civil action, are also referred to other types of action.
However, since the Practice Statement of 1966, the House of Lords is explicitly released from this obligation, which allows very exceptionally, to revoke the previous become manifestly inadequate or unfair. In United States, the Supreme Court makes it much more frequently (eg Roper v. Simmons, 2005, which reversed the judgment of 1989, Stanford v. Kentucky, concerning the death penalty for minors). In practice, the courts use various interpretive techniques that allow them to depart from precedent, including, for example, the technique of distinction. The court must show why it considers the case differs from those previously considered, and why previous can not apply fully. In doing so, he claims not to challenge the law, but only complement it.
This rule is that courts make decisions consistent with previous decisions. Although less important in countries with a civil law tradition of rights, the rule of precedent there is also the form of respect for precedent. In this context, the principle of legal certainty, that law must be known and accessible to all, require that law is effectively enforced.
In their decisions, the common law courts regularly cite many previous decisions on which they claim to base their decisions, far more than the law itself. The rule of precedent is almost always requires lower courts in decisions during their calls.
The legal relationship that develops as a result of conducting the case and is the ratio between actor (in a criminal trial the prosecutor), the defendant (the accused in a criminal trial) and judge; it generates powers, duties and, according to some authors, including personal rights and obligations for these individuals. The exercise of powers and discharging the burden determines the chain of acts which is embodied in process (process).
In United States, the previous decisions of Supreme Court United States is required (bind) in principle to all other courses that are covered by a federal or state. Lower in hierarchy, the courts theoretically comply with jurisprudence of Court Appeal (the district court comply with decisions of Federal Court Appeal from the United States which they depend, and district court as a court appeal respect the decisions of Supreme Court.
There are, however, ideas that go even further in division between action and substantive law, stating that action is simply due to every citizen the right to sue in courts, regardless of merits of claim that this is done worth. The title of action can be attributed to: subject to holder of substantive law that action is intended to achieve, which acts therefore in his interest. To a public body, the public prosecutor, acting in public interest and to anyone in public interest to which it belongs (action).
The relief sought, that is what actor apply to court, intended as a judicial decision (immediate relief sought) or good in life and in this way seeks to achieve (this request was mediated). The cause of action, ie the title, giving rise to substantive law under which it is asked for the relief sought. These concepts, prepared with reference to civil action, are also referred to other types of action.
However, since the Practice Statement of 1966, the House of Lords is explicitly released from this obligation, which allows very exceptionally, to revoke the previous become manifestly inadequate or unfair. In United States, the Supreme Court makes it much more frequently (eg Roper v. Simmons, 2005, which reversed the judgment of 1989, Stanford v. Kentucky, concerning the death penalty for minors). In practice, the courts use various interpretive techniques that allow them to depart from precedent, including, for example, the technique of distinction. The court must show why it considers the case differs from those previously considered, and why previous can not apply fully. In doing so, he claims not to challenge the law, but only complement it.
About the Author:
When you are looking for information about civil maritime litigation, you can pay a visit to the web pages online here today. Details are available at http://www.clinmuzyka.com now.
No comments:
Post a Comment