The Supreme Court’s mandatory jurisdiction is all but gone. On June 27, President Reagan signed legislation that freed the Court from virtually all appeals—cases the justices were at least technically obliged to decide on the merits.

Examples of jurisdiction in a Sentence The court has jurisdiction over most criminal offenses. His attorney claimed the court lacked jurisdiction in this matter. The matter falls outside the jurisdiction of this court. territory under the jurisdiction of the federal government He was arrested in another jurisdiction.

Use “compulsory” in a sentence | “compulsory” sentence examples

1. Attendance at these lectures is not compulsory.
2. In East Germany learning Russian was compulsory.
3. Is military service compulsory in your country?
4. He has just finished a stint of compulsory military service.
5. Attendance at evening prayers is not compulsory.

original jurisdiction in a sentence

1. The Court has original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus, prohibition, and certiorari.
2. The conferral of original jurisdiction creates some problems for the High Court.
3. It is also necessary to distinguish between original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction.

Mandatory jurisdiction means that the appeals court must hear every appeal that originates from the courts within its purview. This doesn’t mean that it reviews every decision the lower courts render, but if a party to any lower court decision submits an appeal, it must review it.

on the bench

Cases in United States courts of appeals are heard by three-judge panels, randomly chosen from the sitting appeals court judges of that circuit. If a party loses before a circuit panel they may appeal for a rehearing en banc. A majority of the active circuit judges must agree to hear or rehear a case en banc.

In the United States, the Circuit Courts of Appeal usually sit in panels of judges but for important cases may expand the bench to a larger number, when the judges are said to be sitting en banc. Similarly, only one of the judges of the u.s. tax court will typically hear and decide on a tax controversy.

by the court

Traditionally, the per curiam opinion was used to signal that a case was uncontroversial, obvious, and did not require a substantial opinion. By the turn of the century, the Court also regularly issued per curiams for brief affirmances and reversals of lower court decisions.

In law, a concurring opinion is in certain legal systems a written opinion by one or more judges of a court which agrees with the decision made by the majority of the court, but states different (or additional) reasons as the basis for his or her decision.

When a Supreme Court justice writes a concurring opinion, it signals he agrees with the ultimate decision made by the majority of the court, but not with the reasons the decision was reached. The justice writes his own rationale for the final decision, shining a light on another viewpoint.

For example: Judges Monihan and Scott decide that the trial court did make a mistake, in that they should have allowed the evidence into the trial. In this example of dissenting opinion, Judge Bowlan may provide a written explanation of why he disagrees with the decision on the appeal.

Which of the following best describes a concurring opinion? An opinion that agrees with the majority decision, but disagrees with the logic. One or more justices may agree with the majority but disagree with the rationale presented in the majority opinion.

judicial opinion

intransitive verb. 1a : to express agreement concur with an opinion. b : approve concur in a statement. 2 : to act together to a common end or single effect.

Precedent is especially used in a legal context, in which it refers to a past court decision or judicial ruling that can be used as a guideline for decisions in similar cases. In this context, precedent often refers collectively to all previous decisions relevant to the case.

1 : an earlier occurrence of something similar. 2a : something done or said that may serve as an example or rule to authorize or justify a subsequent act of the same or an analogous kind a verdict that had no precedent.

Oral argument is your chance to further explain to the appellate court in person the arguments that you made in your brief. You can clarify the points you made in your brief, tell the appellate court what you think is most important about your arguments, and answer questions from the appellate court judges.

This week, we’re tackling the main elements of successful oral arguments.

1. Start strong. At the beginning of the argument, introduce:
2. State the issue. After your introduction, briefly describe the case.
3. Provide a roadmap. You want to let the court know where you are going with your argument.
4. The facts.

How to Prepare for Oral Argument

1. Ditch the outline. Outlines encourage rigid thinking.
2. Practice intense preparation.
3. Organize and practice your argument.
4. Commit your argument to memory.
5. If you can, moot your argument.
6. Last-minute prep on the day of your argument.

Expect the judges to ask you to do any or all of the following during argument:

1. Address hypotheticals.
2. Concede obvious points.
3. Distinguish cases.
4. Respond to intricate statutory or contract construction inquires.
5. Discuss broad public policy issues.
6. Respond to questions that seem out of left field.

There are three main ways to respond to an argument: 1) challenge the facts the other person is using; 2) challenge the conclusions they draw from those facts; and 3) accept the point, but argue the weighting of that point (i.e., other points should be considered above this one.)

It is often said that May it please the Court is an obligatory phrase at the outset of an oral argument—and that any other opener suggests the oral advocate is unknowledgeable or inexperienced. Victor Hugo used the phrase in The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1831)—or rather it appears in the English translation of 1834.

Oral argument calls for a different presentation and skill set than are needed to write persuasive briefs. And, if your case is before one of the California appellate courts, a draft opinion has already been written. At most, cite the arguments and pages of the briefs to which the cases relate.

Briefs are the written legal and factual arguments that advocates submit to the court in a particular case. Oral arguments are the advocates’ oral presentations and questions by the judges.

An oral argument is a presentation of a case before a court by spoken word. Lawyers or parties representing each side in a dispute have 30 minutes to make their case and answer questions from Supreme Court justices or Intermediate Appellate Court judges.

Writing a legal argument

1. identify relevant legal issues.
2. apply the law to the facts.
3. structure your answer clearly and logically (use the model plan)
4. use appropriate language for a legal argument.