1988 Judicial Crisis In 1988‚on the ground of misconduct‚ Tun Salleh Abas by then Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohammad was brought before a tribunal and this tribunal was chaired by Tun Hamid Omar. Due to the constitutionality of the tribunal‚ Tun Salleh Abas filed a suit in the High Court of Kuala Lumpur and while proceeding‚ interim stay against the tribunal was applied by Tun Salleh Abas until July 4‚ 1988 but the request then denied. Later‚however‚ an interlocutory order was granted to Tun
Premium Mahathir bin Mohamad
Question(A) JUDICIAL PRECEDENT Judicial Precedent is a decision of the court used as a source for future decision making. In Judicial Precedent the decision made in superiors are binding on subsequent cases in lower courts on the same or similar facts. The doctrine of judicial Precedent did not become fully established until the second half of the nineteenth century. In the Common law Courts in the United Kingdom the procedure was to apply the theory of the common law‚ which as simply
Premium Common law Supreme court Court
In the 1825 case of Eakin v. Raub‚ Pennsylvania Justice John Bannister Gibson declared that the judicial branch of the government had no right to influence or control the actions of any other branch of the government. Thus‚ Justice Gibson declared the act of judicial review unconstitutional and in disagreement with the proper role of the judiciary as inherently defined by the constitution. The proper roles and powers of the judiciary branch of the government‚ as conveyed to it by the constitution
Free Law Separation of powers Constitution
Judicial precedent is the source of law where past decisions create law for judges to refer back to for guidance in future cases. Precedent is based upon the principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere‚ more commonly referred to as ‘stare decisis’‚ meaning to “stand by decided matters”. A binding precedent is where previous decisions must be followed. This can sometimes lead to unjust decisions‚ which I will address when talking about the advantages and disadvantages of binding precedent. First
Premium Precedent Law Common law
Judicial notice is a rule in the law of evidence that allows a fact to be introduced into evidence if the truth of that fact is so well known or established that it cannot be refuted. This is done upon the request of the party seeking to have the fact at issue determined by the court. Matters admitted under judicial notice are accepted without being formally introduced by a witness or any other rule of evidence‚ and even if one party wishes to lead evidence to the contrary. In India the concept
Premium Law Evidence law Jury
The area of law in which this question is concerned is judicial review. Judicial review can be defined as ‘… the means by which the Courts control the exercise of Governmental powers.’ The Courts will look at the way in which a decision was made‚ not the decision itself‚ to find out if any powers have been abused. Judicial review is an application to the Courts to assess an action or decision made by a public body on a point of public law. A particular decision may be found to be in breach of natural
Premium Law
Regional Trial Court and other lower courts Regional Trial Courts (RTC) Highest “trial courts” in the Philippines. It was formerly called as the Court of First instance (CFI) before 1980. It was established in each of the 13 regions in the Philippines. Qualifications: Natural-born citizen at least thirty-five years of age and for at least ten years‚ has been engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines or has held a public office in the Philippines requiring admission to the practice
Premium Civil procedure Complaint Service of process
The use of judicial waivers and remand to adult court: Several types of transfer for youths from juvenile court to adult court‚ judicial waiver‚ statutory exclusion‚ and direct file exist and are utilized. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2010) judicial waiver is the most popular. "47 States and the District of Columbia provide judicial discretion to waive certain juveniles to criminal court. Thirty-seven States and the District of Columbia have one or more
Free Law Judge United States
Judicial Discretion Judicial discretion refers to the authority that judges have for making and interpreting certain laws. Within the United States‚ judicial discretion is one of the fundamental tenants of the system of law‚ and is guaranteed in the United States Constitution. Both state and federal judges can exercise judicial discretion‚ although their discretion is not unlimited. This study focuses on a series of legal‚ extralegal‚ and systemic variables presumed to affect the workings of criminal-justice
Premium Law
Judicial precedent: A judgment of a court of law cited as an authority for deciding a similar set of facts; a case which serves as authority for the legal principle embodied in its decision. The common law has developed by broadening down from precedent to precedent. A judicial precedent is a decision of the court used as a source for future decision making. This is known as stare decisis (to stand upon decisions) and by which precedents are authoritative and binding and must be followed. In giving
Free Common law Precedent Stare decisis