Appellate process is integral to the American judicial system and is a constitutionally protected right. Individual, or corporations for that matter, have the right to appeal a trial on the grounds that the decision was made erroneously or without proper attention paid to evidence or judicial procedure. Basically, the appellate process refers to the specific procedures and practices by which the appellate system in particular works. The appellate courts are

7). This point brings up one of the larger issues suggested by the opinion (which will be discussed in greater detail later), namely, the fact that the conflict between the law's position on jurisdiction and this kind of estoppel is "yet another case where the government has 'taken entirely irreconcilable positions regarding the jurisdiction of the federal courts," leading to increased litigation and cost (Lettow, 2012, p. 7). Thus,

4Giles v. CommonwealthCite as 672 S.E. 2d 879 (Va. 2009)Facts of CaseDefendant, Christopher Lee Giles, took part in breaking and entering a house on September 28, 2005, in the City of Martinsville. The house belonged to Oscar Thornton, which was an inheritance from his deceased mother three months before. While Mr. Thornton has his primary home in Maryland, he treated the house he inherited from his mother as a vacation

Gault Caption: In re Gault et al., 387 U.S. 1; 87 S. Ct. 1428; 18 L. Ed. 2D 527; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1478; 40 Ohio Op. 2D 378. Facts: After allegedly making obscene phone calls to a neighbor, the appellants' son, a fifteen-year-old boy, was taken into custody by the Gila County sheriff. The detention occurred without notice to the parents. The boy was questioned without being advised of his right

Reasonable Suspicion and 4th Amendment Law in U.S. v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2001) Title and Citation: U.S. v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2001) Type of Action: Review by the U.S. Supreme Court of a ruling made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held that evidence should be suppressed as a result of a violation of the Fourth Amendment right to privacy and protection from unwarranted and

U.S. v. O'Hagan case Facts In the U.S. v. O'Hagan case, the defendant, James Herman O'Hagan, was a partner in a major Minneapolis firm, and was involved in a corporate acquisition as a representative of the acquiring corporation (Corley, et al., 2002). D allegedly used insider information to purchase stock before the details of the acquisition were made public. History discovered in 1988 that Grand Met PLC, one of his clients, planned to