Specifically, Court lacked jurisdiction when grating the motion to enforce, rendering the judgments void.
( you must show how you were effected) had not shown that she was “strongly affected” by the judgment or made a strong showing that the judgments were obtained by fraud.
This case demonstrates the very good reasons why judgments should be final and should not be disturbed. The plaintiffs to prevail must have shown by clear and convincing evidence that there was fraud on the court, and all doubts must be resolved in favor of the finality of the judgment.
It is thus fraud where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial
…show more content…
What relief ~ The judgment of the trial court is set aside. The case is REVERSED and REMANDED.
NOTE: All attorneys sign Subpoena as officers of the court.
Rule 9.4. Oath required when admitted to practice law
In addition to the language required by Business and Professions Code section 6067, the oath to be taken by every person on admission to practice law is to conclude with the following: “As an officer of the court, I will strive to conduct myself at all times withdignity, courtesy and integrity.”
Rule 9.4 adopted effective May 27, 2014.
Officer of the court
n. any person who has an obligation to promote justice and effective operation of the judicial system, including judges, the attorneys who appear in court, bailiffs, clerks, and other personnel. As officers of the court lawyers have an absolute ethical duty to tell judges the truth, including avoiding dishonesty or evasion about reasons the attorney or his/her client is not appearing, the location of documents and other matters related to conduct of the
…show more content…
Judge (To make a decision or reach a conclusion after examining all the factual evidence presented. To form an opinion after evaluating the facts and applying the law.)
A public officer chosen or elected to preside over and to administer the law in a court of justice; one who controls the proceedings in a courtroom and decides questions of law or discretion.
As a verb the term judge generally describes a process of evaluation and decision. In a legal case this process may be conducted by either a judge or a jury. Decisions in any case must be based on applicable law. Where the case calls for a jury verdict, the judge tells the jury what law applies to the case.
As a noun judge refers to a person authorized to make decisions. A judge is a court officer authorized to decide legal cases. A judge presiding over a case may initiate investigations on related matters, but generally judges do not have the power to conduct investigations for other branches or agencies of
II. Trial Court Ruling. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim. The plaintiff’s retaliation claim went to trial, but the court excluded evidence regarding the alleged sexual harassment. The court refused to grant the plaintiff a new trial. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s ruling.
Primrose claimed about the incident at Wal-Mart Stores, INC., that they were trying to cause any kind of harm to her. Based on the evidence that had been provided to the court have proved that the signs was clear enough to be seen by everyone around the area at that time. Moreover, Wal-Mart did not asking her to go around the display in order for her to transported the watermelon. The Judges thinks that the incident would not happened if Ms.Primrose can move her shopping cart closer so it would be easier for her to transferred the watermelon. Therefore, the Judges are agreed with the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant their motion for summary judgment, after it had been proven that the display was open and obvious to be seen by everyone and there’s no sign of any risk or mean to harm anyone. Also, Ms. Primrose was failed to prove her’s argues that she claimed above to support her liability to La. R.S. 9:2800.6, the Judges cannot impose any enforcement or duty upon the defendant. In conclusion, the three assignments of error cannot be
The last model of the judicial decision making is the legal model. The legal model assumes that judges give in to the law when making decisions. If a judge has any personal preferences for an outcome in a case, it is assumed that he or she leaves these preferences aside and defers to the facts of the case or legal standard when making his or her decision.
The case was taken to appeals court where they affirmed the verdict and neither court
circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized as the result of the
Whether a judge should be elected or appointed has been a topic for discussion since the creation of a judicial system. Depending on what side of the decision one may be on, there are some challenges that arise from each side. If a judge is elected, will he be judicious in his decision based on the law or based on his constituents? If the judge is appointed, will he be subject to the authority that appointed him, thereby slanting his decision to keep favor of the executive or legislator that appointed him? Mandatory retirement is also a question that brings about challenges. How old is too old? When does a judge become ineffective based on their age?
The judges that are a part of this group has many different roles, some of which are to issues warrants, making a determination of probable cause in evidence, denying or granting bail to offenders, overseeing trials, making rulings on different motions and even overseeing hearings. The prosecuting attorney is the one who will represent that state in c...
A jury is defined as “a body of persons legally selected and sworn to inquire into any matter of fact and to give their verdict according to the evidence” by Webster(2004). It differs from a bench trial, in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions. Nowadays the jury system is very popular in almost all of the common law legal systems, so that people of those countries can make sure that the case would not be judged only by one’s personal willing or prejudice.
It is my belief that an unelected judge should have power over decisions regarding the creation and altercation of laws. The issue of whether or not a judge should be a part of the law making process can arise from dialogue theory. Judges have the power to interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when imposing a new law or ruling down on a case. Dialogue theory claims that if a judge uses their own judgement to make rulings it could lead to overlooking long time problems or it might be more influenced on personal gain (Dyzenhaus, David, Arthur Ripstein, and Sofia Reibetanz Moreau 592). In fact giving unelected judges this ability allows them to make laws based on the charter being enforced or even differentiate from it if the case requires, a judge must also provide logical explanation behind everything they choose to impose and through these changes it can actually lead to very positive differences in our society. Although unelected judges have to make very controversial and moral decisions, with the combination of the charter of rights and freedoms and their own reasoning they are a crucial part of any nations growth.
The court system is composed of lawyers, judges, and juries. Their job is to ensure that everyone receives a fair trial, determine guilt or innocence, and apply sentences to guilty parties. The court system will contain one judge, and a jury of twelve citizens. The jury of the court will determine the guilt or innocence of the individual. The jury will also recommend a sentence for the crime the individual committed.
The judge was referred to in your honor by the counsel, the accused and the prosecution. Additionally, there was the judge’s associate whose duty was to swear in the jury, keep the trial exhibits during the court proceedings and record the court verdict at the end of each trial. There was also the judge’s tipstaff, whose job was to announce that the court was in session as well as swear in witnesses. However, the most important duty of the tipstaff is to take care of the jury and escort them out of the courtroom. I learned that the jury selection process is called Venezuela....
The courts have the function of giving the public a chance to present themselves whether to prosecute or defend themselves if any disputes against them rise. It is known to everyone that a court is a place where disputes can be settled while using the right and proper procedures. In the Criminal court is the luxury of going through a tedious process of breaking a law. Once you have been arrested and have to go to court because of the arrest, you now have a criminal case appointed against you. The court is also the place where a just, fair and unbiased trial can be heard so that it would not cause any disadvantage to either of the party involved in the dispute. The parties are given a chance to represent themselves or to choose to have a legal representative, which is mostly preferred by many.
As we know a judge is someone who gives the final verdict in the court proceedings. The judge is given all evidence from the defense and the plaintiff. He or she then goes and reviews all evidence. Evidence can be anything from police reports, photographs, statements etc. However, a poorly written report can highly affect the impact of the court proceeding. If the judge has to stop and question the police for what the report is saying is only causing
It is a decision made by judges on written and unwritten law on relevant issues in an actual case that comes up before them. It may bind others in the similar dispute in the future. The decisions are reported and can be source from Authoritative Law Journals. Judges decided cases following certain accepted principles termed precedents (Black and Bell, 2011). Precedent can be defined as the source of law on determining later cases involving similar facts or issues. Generally, a judge is bound to follow the decision of a previous judge in similar circumstances. A judge’s decision in an earlier and similar case constitutes a precedent, and if that precedent comes from a court superior in the hierarchy to the court in which the present case is being tried, that precedent must be followed. Precedents are decisions reached by their predecessors in earlier similar situations. The types of precedents are Authoritative Precedent, Declaratory precedent, Original precedent, persuasive precedent, distinguishing and overruling. The essence of this doctrine is called Doctrine of ‘Stare Decisis’.