Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
If a party decides to appeal a ruling, it goes to an appellate court. The appellate court will not hear a case that has not already passed through the district court. Moreover, when it does hear a case it does not re-try the case on its merits, but merely seeks to see if there was an error in the rule of law in the district court's hearing of and decision on the case. The Supreme Court is also an appellate court, but instead of the case being heard by one judge, the case is heard by all of the Supreme Court justices. They each vote on the issue, with majority rule guiding the decision. This stands in stark contrast to the other courts, which function with one judge
The Supreme Court is also different from the other courts in that it only hears cases of national importance (Fallon et al., 2007). The other courts will hear any case that is of federal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, however, receives petitions for many more cases than it actually hears. As a result, it picks and chooses cases based on their relevance to the existing body of law and to the nation as a whole.
Some of the other differences have been highlighted above. The Supreme Court only hears national-level cases, whereas the other courts hear cases from a specific geographic region. The Supreme Court has a panel of justices, whereas the other levels have individual judges. An addition difference between these different...
District court judges render decisions. Appellate court judges test those decisions for errors in the rule of law. The Supreme Court is called upon to render decisions only in situations where either the rule of law is unclear, or if the appellate court judge has also made an error of law.
Lastly, the appellate court and Supreme Court have a different process for taking cases that does the district court. The district court must take cases that are of federal jurisdiction, whereas the other courts can only take a case if it has passed through subordinate levels of the federal justice system.
All three levels of the federal justice system have similarities, usually derived from the common goal that all share are parties within the federal court system. They also have differences, however, which reflect the different role that each court is intended to play within that system, to achieve that common goal. When we understand these similarities and differences, we can gain a better sense of how the federal court system functions.
Works Cited:
Klein, F.; Bander, E.; Richert, J. (1977). Federal and State Court Systems. Institute of Judicial Administration, 1977.
Fallon, R.; Fallon, J.R.; Meltzer, D. & Shapiro, D. (2007). Hart and Wechsler's the Federal Courts and the Federal System, 2007.
Works Cited:
Klein, F.; Bander, E.; Richert, J. (1977). Federal and State Court Systems. Institute of Judicial Administration, 1977.
Fallon, R.; Fallon, J.R.; Meltzer, D. & Shapiro, D. (2007). Hart and Wechsler's the Federal Courts and the Federal System, 2007.
Federal CourtsThe United States judicial system is based on the federal courts structure as established in Article III of the Constitution. This system has been the subject of numerous studies and publications that seek to explain how it works. William A. Fletcher and James E. Pfander wrote a book, Gilbert Law Summaries on Federal Courts, which provides an outline of the federal court system in the U.S. The book provides
In light of the three different appellate courts decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court elected to hear the case against President Obama's healthcare legislation. While the most recent decision found in favor of the constitutionality of the law, "the Supreme Court agreed to hear appeals from just one decision, from the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, the only one so far striking down the
U.S. Courts and the Administration of Justice In this short essay, the author will comment on five issues that they feel impact upon the administration of courts and justice in the United States. It is the opinion of the author that the quality of the administration of the courts and the justice system is reflected in the way it treats its minorities. While the record has been decidedly mixed in the
During the 70's and 80's some of these opportunities were eliminated by the actions of the Burger and Rehnquist courts but habeas corpus actions remain a major problem for both systems and our a source of much acrimony. In 1996, Congress amended the federal habeas corpus statute in order to provide some clarification as to how habeas corpus was to be applied and interpreted nationwide. XI. The Eleventh Amendment and
Table 1. Japan -- Knowledge Economy Index. Index Japan (most recent) Group: All Japan (1995) Group: All USA (most recent) Group: All USA (1995) Group: All Knowledge Economy Index Index Japan (most recent) Group: All Japan (1995) Group: All USA (most recent) Group: All USA (1995) Group: All Knowledge Index Index Japan (most recent) Group: All Japan (1995) Group: All USA (most recent) Group: All USA (1995) Group: All Econ. Incentive Regime Index Japan (most recent) Group: All Japan (1995) Group: All USA (most recent) Group: All USA (1995) Group: All
International Terrorism Discussion Questions on International Terrorism Explain the origins and evolution of long-term separatists and ethnic and nationalistic terrorism. Also, provide group names and their respective parts of the world. Ethno- separatist/nationalist terrorism is not specifically a modern phenomenon. Historically, two Jewish movements in Judaea that desired to provoke the local population to rise against the Roman occupiers used ethno-racial terrorism. However, it was only in 60s and 70s that terrorism came