1. An Alternative Dispute Resolution is an act that means for disagreeing parties that couldn’t solve their issues or still haven’t find the way out of the issues. It is a collective term for the ways that the parties will come to an agreement which everyone agrees on with or without the help of the third party. Usually some courts use parties to help them in some cases. Usually Alternative Dispute Resolution is the support term of the process. In which an impartial person from the Alternative Dispute Resolution which is an Alternative Dispute Resolution practitioner. That various person will assists to those who has the problem or the issues or dispute to resolve the problem or the issues between them. Alternative Dispute Resolution commonly use for abbreviation for Alternative Dispute Resolution but, it can also be used as to assist the issues which leading them to the conclusion and the decision.
2. Precedent is a legal form or a decision that proceed a case problem of law or rule in future similar cases. Precedent in business law is divided into 2 types. Which is binding and non – binding or persuasive. So what are the differences between 2 of them? First, if the precedent is binding, it means that all of the lower courts must follow whatever the decisions that have been maid by them. For example the final decision od the case is A. But the other lower courts have another suggestion or opinion to say. Yes they can say their opinion but in the end, it wont change the decision that have been maid by the head court.
If the Precedent is not binding or persuasive, it means that all of the courts and the judicial bodies can provides some supports and some opinions to support the final decision of the final argument or the case....
... middle of paper ...
...often, they do not have the prove of the contract.
In the other hand, there is a formal kind of contract, which means that it is the opposite of the simple contract. Which is there are 2 kinds. Written and oral. It is the same as simple contract but it has prove that both side of the parties has agrees on whatever that they have agreed on. Why a lot of people choose to do formal contract rather than simple contract? It will comes up to the consequences if they breach the contract. They know the consequences that they will get if they ignore or not following the contract agreement. When that happen and end up at the court, they will found guilty because there is a written proof or sound proof that they have agreed. And because of that proof, if one of the parties broke them, that party will get the same consequences that they have agreed on before in the contract.
According to Robin (2002), there are five conflict resolution styles: confront compromise, collaborate, accommodate, and avoid. Identify the preference(s) you most often use from these resolution styles. Think about times you have interacted with styles other than your own. Once the differences between these styles are identified, they can be managed, and the appropriateness of when to use them can be determined.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that although the doctrine of stare decisis plays an important role, standing precedent can be abandoned to allow for evolving societal standards of behavior or expectations.
Concurring Opinion- Written explanation of the views of one or more judges who support a decision reached by a majority of the court, but wish to add or emphasize a point that was not made in the majority decision
In this course we have had a brief but informative insight into the roles of government, and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is perceived as one body of the federal government, and it is a powerful one at most times. With of all this power and the decision making, it is normal to wonder if the court is influenced by political views, beliefs or even ideas. It is being questioned in our course if the Supreme Court is influenced by the dominant political ideas of the time and if the courts just follow those ideas and that is the topic I plan to address, but I also wish to address that politics are not the only influence on the Supreme Court and its decisions. I do feel that the court has been influenced because with so many views and beliefs it’s hard not to have an opinion even in such political matters. Although situations in political vary so do the opinions of those in the court, the effect is no different in any given situation. The influences are simply not just political either, but that is where the major opinion lies. I plan to look at not only how politics influence our Supreme Court, but how other matters such as personal opinion and background influence the court’s decisions on political discussions as well.
In the video engager, Dr. Kristina Mitchell explains the three different models of judicial decision making; these models include the legal model, the attitudinal model, and the strategic model. The legal model is when the Supreme Court Justices make their decisions based off of fact of case, laws, and precedents. A precedent is a previous case that deals with the an issue that had been discussed before by the Supreme Court. Essentially, the justices would use the information from previous cases to help them to decide on the case at hand. The weakness of the legal model is that basing the decisions off of previous cases would mean even though the world is moving forward, and times and opinions are changing, we are using things from the past to aid in decision making. However, a strength of using this model is using the past to help see how people will react to the decision made and determining if the precedent’s ruling was positive or negative. The Attitudinal model is based off of the fact that the Justices serve for life, unless they are impeached or convicted so the justices have no constraint on their decision making. This model explains that Justices make decisions
Conflicting judicial philosophies define the essence of the nation’s highest court: The Supreme Court. These two conflicting doctrines are judicial restraint and judicial activism. Judicial restraint occurs when justices attempt to limit their own power by only declaring actions of the other branches unconstitutional when the decision is obvious. Precedent, the concept of stare decisis, is also highly revered by judicial restraint justices. Judicial activism revolves around the idea that justices should “legislate from the bench” by entering into social and political matters.
One of the practical restraints possible to happen is that the company will have to allocate human resources, time, and money for legal assistance in order to complete the investigation. Time that is supposed to be spent on development of other projects will be used to interview key people and eyewitnesses. In the same manner, Steven and other employees will have to temporarily halt their tasks to attend to closed-door meetings.
Something more common is stare decisis, which is a type of methodology, and common law that they use along with interpreting the constitution. It is used so judges have some type of consistency and are bound to their past decisions. Stare decisis there are four primary reasons to follow it, it treats cases the the same, makes the law more predictable, strengthens judicial decision making and furthers stability (Oldfather, 2014). This is important in regards to constitutional interpretation because it is basically saying that judge is also bound to past constitutional interpretation. Some of the precedents produced by stare decisis are bad, but that’s because the system is not perfect. The implementation of precedence is also complicated because you have to find cases that are sufficiently alike and most cases are not identical (Oldfather, 2014). Another significant factor in stare decisis, is that the courts usually feel more comfortable in overruling constitutional precedents than amending the constitution, which is much more difficult. Stare decisis is commonly used in adjudication, probably the most prominent articulation of it was in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where they analyzed if they wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade, in terms of its workability (Oldfather,
Oral arguments influence the questions raised by Justices, which signal their concern about the external actors’ preferences in public policy, since not all this issues are presented in amicus briefs (Johnson 30). The purpose for this is for Justices to use discretion when making court decisions, in order to avoid affecting the public policy preference of the executive branch and Congress (Johnson 47). For Justices it is important to make court decisions that would not affect the future policy preference of all external
Alternative Dispute Resolution or ADR refers to a number of various processes that can be used to resolve legal disputes other than by litigation. Recently, methods of dispute resolution which focus on arbitration, mediation and negotiation as an alternative to adjudication have gained notoriety. This notoriety may have been caused by the public perception that ADR methods are less expensive, more efficient, and more satisfactory than the normal traditional course of litigation. The goals of establishing these processes to resolve disputes as an alternative to more formal legal processes include: 1) to make the regular court system more efficient, less costly and more responsive to the needs of the litigants; 2) to offer alternative methods of dispute resolution in addition to the regular court system; and 3) to provide public education about the available alternatives.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative Dispute Resolution. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) involves dispute resolution processes and techniques that fall outside of the government judicial process. There has been moves against ADR in the past by entities of many political parties and their associates, despite this, ADR has gained inclusive acceptance among both the broad community and the legal profession in past years. In fact, many courts now entail parties to remedy to ADR of some type, usually mediation, before allowing the parties' cases to be tried. The increasing attractiveness of ADR can be clarified by the increasing caseload of traditional courts, the perception that ADR imposes fewer costs than litigation, a preference for confidentiality, and the desire of some parties to obtain larger control over the selection of the individual or individuals who will decide their dispute.
Since there is a premise on which the judgment will be made, a proper benchmark, the judicial procedure occurs much quicker. For this reason, it is much more efficient in its process in relation to the codified system which does not follow this process of a precedent based system. As the decisions made are premised on antecedents, they have a firmer basis. This is an obvious advantage over the common law as the codified system of law has to rely on the creation of rules and legislation rather using case laws to create future laws.
The grounds of judicial review help judges uphold constitutional principles by, ensuring discretionary power of public bodies correspond with inter alia the rule of law. I will discuss the grounds of illegality, irrationality and proportionality in relation to examining what case law reveals about the purpose and effect these grounds.
A key factor of judicial precedents usually refers to decisions of a higher court being binding upon a lower court in the hierarchical structure of the courts. This is best illustrated in Donoghue v Stevenson . However, if the previous decision was made by a court of equal or higher status to the court deciding the new case, then the Judge should follow the rule of law set in the earlier case. These are known as Binding precedents.
Conflict is unavoidable and connected to a world where different ideas and opinions are challenged. Negative conflict occurs when voices are not expressed appropriately, discussions are not in control or different parties reject moving forward with a solution. There is difficulty resolving disagreements because there are multiple reactions to disputes. However, a positive conflict supports debates without a destructive outcome. They improve communication, introduce principles that are important to others, and reduce chaos. On the other hand, the approach that a person uses to address conflict dictates the outcome they receive. Methods for resolving conflict include avoiding the problem, smoothing out a situation, competing against the ideas