PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL IN THE SUPREME COURT: JURISDICTION, THE RULE OF LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY
5
Citation
0
Reference
10
Related Paper
Citation Trend
Abstract:
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.Keywords:
Content (measure theory)
Federal jurisdiction
Section (typography)
Cite
Citations (10)
The Supreme Court in 1888 was in crisis. Its overall structure and responsibilities, created a century earlier by the Judiciary Act of 1789, were no longer adequate or appropriate. The Court had no control over its own docket - at the beginning of the 1888 term, there were 1,563 cases pending - and the justices’ responsibilities, which included circuit riding, were impossible to meet. Shaped as it was by a law almost as old as the country itself, the Supreme Court in 1888 - and the federal judicial system as a whole - would be barely recognizable to many today.This chapter - which appears in IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law’s compilation Then & Now: Stories of Law and Progress - examines the subsequent ways in which Congress (often at the urging of the justices) and the Supreme Court itself sought to lessen its workload and define the limits of its jurisdiction. Through such factors as the creation of intermediate appellate courts, the passage of the Evarts Act in 1891 and the Judges’ Bill in 1925, and the Court’s own early refusal to engage in error correction, the Supreme Court’s jurisdictional scope narrowed, and the Court evolved into the institution we know today. This “progressive contraction of jurisdiction” has led to historically low dockets. In October Term 2011, the Supreme Court decided a historic low of only 65 cases on the merits.
Remand (court procedure)
Majority opinion
Cite
Citations (0)
This study, consisting of two discrete parts, will explore the creation, jurisdiction and practices of the United States Supreme Court. Part I of the article [“A Primer on the United States Supreme Court: An Indispensible Party in Creating a Legal Cannon”] will discuss issues relating to the important “Rule of Four,” by which the Supreme Court controls its docket, issues relating to the adjudication of “political questions,” provides judicial biographies of the Justices of the Court from the website of the Court itself, and discusses the various judicial philosophies which guide individual judges in their determination—including a commentary on the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts.Part II [“A Discussion of Major Supreme Court Cases from the Spring 2022 Term”] will discuss and summarize the decisions of the Court in important cases, termed the “Big Five,” dealing with abortion, hand-guns and the Second Amendment, religious liberty, immigration, and the reaches of administrative law as these are delivered by the Supreme Court during the Spring of 2022.
Majority opinion
Adjudication
Precedent
Remand (court procedure)
Supreme Court Decisions
Concurring opinion
Cite
Citations (0)
One of the issues that the current proliferation of international courts and jurisdictions raised in the international legal order is overlapping jurisdiction. On 27 June 2014, the Assembly of the African Union adopted a protocol on the Amendments to the Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights which extends the jurisdiction of the court to cover international crimes. The decision of the AU to clothe the African court with a criminal jurisdiction has brought, once again, the issue of overlapping jurisdiction to the surface. This article is an attempt to answer the questions: to what extent does the criminal jurisdiction of the African court overlap with the jurisdiction of the ICC, and is the issue of overlapping jurisdiction a common occurrence or an imminent concern? Taking the crimes under the jurisdiction of the courts and the fact that large numbers of African states are state parties to the ICC into consideration, many tend to argue that overlapping jurisdiction is inevitable and is likely to cause friction for the primacy of jurisdiction. However, this article argues that a close scrutiny of the substantive and territorial jurisdiction of the ICC and the African Court suggests that the issue of overlapping jurisdiction is both rare and of remote concern.
Subject-matter jurisdiction
Criminal jurisdiction
Cite
Citations (6)
This Note discusses how many lower federal courts, in deciding when to allow state claims to be brought in federal court under the doctrine of pendant party jurisdiction, have interpreted the Supreme Court’s “Aldinger test” in a far more restrictive manner than what the Supreme Court had intended. Additionally, the Note traces the history of the doctrines of pendant jurisdiction, pendant party jurisdiction and ancillary jurisdiction. The Note also discusses of the dispute raging about the actual validity of pendant party jurisdiction, ,focusing particularly on section 1983 cases. In conclusion, the Note articulates the process and analysis a court must employ to determine if Congress has in fact negated jurisdiction. PENDENT PARTY JURISDICTION AND SECTION 1983: WHEN HAS CONGRESS BY IMPLICATION NEGATED JURISDICTION?
Subject-matter jurisdiction
Federal jurisdiction
Section (typography)
Cite
Citations (0)
The Supreme Court's place at the top of a judicial hierarchy is no guarantee that the lower courts will automatically follow its decisions. This mean that compliance and implementation by lower courts is problematic, especially in light of the relative handful of cases heard by the Supreme Court compared to the many thousands of cases passing through the lower courts, almost none of which will ever be reviewed by the Supreme Court. This paper develops a formal model of lower-court interactions with the Supreme Court. A key issue, it turns out, is whether the Supreme Court wants to comply with its own previous decisions. If the Court's composition has changed or if some justices' policy preferences have changed, some Court majority may prefer to modify the Court's previous policy if some appeals court decision provides the opportunity. So if an appeals court does not follow some previous Supreme Court policy, this appeals court is not necessarily being noncompliant; a majority on the new Supreme Court might actually prefer the appeals court's new policy to the old Supreme Court policy. For this reason, understanding the conditions under which the Court itself will maintain or modify its own previous decisions is critical to understanding the issue of appeals court compliance. The results from this model help clarify this issue.
Majority opinion
Concurring opinion
Remand (court procedure)
Precedent
Cite
Citations (3)
Appellate jurisdiction in the Supreme Court of Canada is statutorily defined. Appeals as of right in criminal are confined to appeals on questions of law in certain circumstances. Using a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision as a case-in-point, the author considers how this term should be defined.
Remand (court procedure)
Cite
Citations (0)
Majority opinion
Concurring opinion
Remand (court procedure)
Supreme Court Decisions
Writ
Cite
Citations (1)
Adjudication
Remand (court procedure)
Cite
Citations (21)
The Act expands the jurisdiction of the Georgia Court of Appeals and increases the number of Supreme Court Justices from seven to nine to alleviate the overly burdened Supreme Court of Georgia. The Supreme Court had exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases involving title to land, wills, and divorce. The Act allows the Court of Appeals to hear appeals on these matters.
Remand (court procedure)
Majority opinion
Concurring opinion
Cite
Citations (0)