Chapter 10 Flashcards
federal question
a legal issue that concerns a federal law, federal treaty, or federal Constitution
The Supremacy Clause
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States…and all Treaties…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution of Laws of any State to the contrary, notwithstanding”
burden of proof
the obligation to prove one’s assertion
criminal case: requires establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
civil: preponderance of evidence
preponderance of evidence
the winning side is the one with the majority of evidence in its favor
question of law
alleges that an error(s) in procedure or law occurred at the trial
for example, evidence that should have been excluded that was allowed or a juror was biased and should not have been permitted to serve
bench trial
when a person declines a jry trial, the judge acts as both judge and jury
plaintiff
the person bringing the case
defendant
the person being sued
habeas corpus
claiming that a violation of a federal constitutional right took place
legal procedure that allows a prisoner to challenge their detention and request that a court order their release. The term comes from Latin and literally means “you should have the body
full faith and credit
a decision issued in one state will be respected by all other states
jurisdiction
a court has the authority to decide a case
subject matter jurisdiction
as appropriate for federal courts: federal questions of issues arising under federal laws, treaties, and Constitution
admiralty and maritime law
disputes involving navigation and shipping on navigable waters
party jurisdiction
the Constitution delineates certain parties as suitable to bring cases to federal court:
1. the U.S. government
2. one of the states
3. citizens of different states (diversity cases)
4. foreign ambassadors and counsels
justiciable
a dispute is a matter appropriate for a court to resolve
in other words, courts should not be botherred with problems where a judicial decision is not necessary
case or controversy
the dispute must involve parties with a genuine conflict.
Federal courts will not answer hypothetical questions
finality
a federal court’s decision must be final
Standing
the plaintiff must suffer personal damage to a right protected under federal law or the U.S. Constitution
legislative courts
Article I
are typically assigned certain non-judicial duties, such as administrative roles, and the judges do not have a lifetime appointment
original jurisdiction
a case goes directly to hte Supreme Court, and the justices serve as the trial court
concurrent jurisdiction
denotes that a particular type of case can be heard by more than one court
sovereign immunity
the concept that a government cannot be sued without its consent
master
in original jurisdiciton, a retired federal judge appointed to examine the evidence and recommend an outcome to the justices
writ of appeal
when federal law gives the automatic right to have a certain type of case reviewed by the Supreme Court
while a writ of appeal is an appeal to a higher court
writ of certification
when a lower federral court requests instructions on a point of law never before decided
writ of certiorari
when a writ of appeal is not available
A writ of certiorari is a request to the Supreme Court to review a lower court’s decision
dissenting opinion
a written disagreement with the majority opinion in a legal case.
concurring opinions
a written opinion that agrees with the majority opinion of a court, but provides different reasoning.
judgement
the decision that the Supreme Court issues
precedent
an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances
requires judges to follow the ruling of a higher court in their jurisdiction when dealing with a case that presents similar facts
stare decisis
created to ensure that people are treated the same in applying legal standards
remands
sends the case back, to the highest court in the state to enforce its ruling
judicial review
the power of the courts to review and invalidate actions by the government.
In the United States, it’s a fundamental principle of government.
judicial activists
judges who make decisions based on their own policy preferences rather than the law.
they consider the proper role of courts to include “filling in the holes” left by the Constitution’s vague language.
they believe that it is the duty of judges to minimize potential social disruption caused by the lack of clear policy guidelines, such as the integration of public schools
judicial restraint
contend that judges should decide cases on the basis of precedent and overturn laws only when a conflict with the Constitution is unmistakeable
this approach is best accomplished when judges try to remain within the original intent or meaning of the framers and avoid making policy
statutory interpretations
where the federal courts attempt to understand the meaning of a law
