DOCSLIB.ORG

Individual Access to Constitutional Justice

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Individual Access to Constitutional Justice Strasbourg, 27 January 2011 CDL-AD(2010)039rev. Study N° 538 / 2009 Or. Engl. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) STUDY ON INDIVIDUAL ACCESS TO CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 85th Plenary Session (Venice, 17-18 December 2010) on the basis of comments by Mr Gagik HARUTYUNYAN (Member, Armenia) Ms Angelika NUSSBERGER (Substitute Member, Germany) Mr Peter PACZOLAY (Member, Hungary) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. http://www.venice.coe.int CDL-AD(2010)039 - 2 - Table of contents INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................6 GENERAL REMARKS....................................................................................................6 I. ACCESS TO CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW ...............................................................15 I.1. TYPES OF ACCESS .................................................................................................17 I.1.1. Indirect access...................................................................................................17 I.1.2. Direct access.....................................................................................................20 I.2. THE ACTS UNDER REVIEW ......................................................................................28 I.3. PROTECTED RIGHTS ..............................................................................................29 PARTIAL CONCLUSIONS OF CHAPTER I................................................................30 II. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS.........................................................................................32 II.1. CONDITIONS FOR OPENING PROCEEDINGS (“ FILTERS ”) ............................................32 II.1.1. Time-limits for applications ...............................................................................32 II.1.2. Obligation to be legally represented..................................................................32 II.1.3. Court fees.........................................................................................................33 II.1.4. Reopening cases..............................................................................................33 II.1.5. Abuse of the right to appeal to the constitutional court......................................34 II.1.6. Exhaustion of remedies ....................................................................................34 II.1.7. Applicant directly and currently affected by the violation ...................................34 II.1.8. Applicant as a proper means to repair the complainant’s grief ..........................35 II.1.9. Written form......................................................................................................35 II.1.10. Filters in preliminary ruling procedures ...........................................................35 II.2. INTERVENTION AND JOINDER OF SIMILAR CASES ......................................................36 II.3. FURTHER RELEVANT PROCEDURAL RULES ..............................................................36 II.3.1. Adversarial systems..........................................................................................36 II.3.2. Procedural publicity. .........................................................................................37 II.3.3. Conduct of oral proceedings .............................................................................37 II.4. INTERIM MEASURES ..............................................................................................38 II.4.1. Suspension of implementation..........................................................................38 II.4.2. Stay of ordinary proceedings ............................................................................39 II.4.3. Injunctive measures..........................................................................................40 II.5. DISCONTINUATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS ...............................................................40 II.5.1. DISCONTINUATION IF THE PETITION IS WITHDRAWN ..............................................40 II.5.2. DISCONTINUATION IF THE CHALLENGED ACT LOSES VALIDITY ................................40 II.6. TIME LIMITS FOR TAKING THE DECISION ..................................................................41 PARTIAL CONCLUSIONS OF CHAPTER II...............................................................41 III. DECISION................................................................................................................42 III.1. Scope of review..................................................................................................42 III.2. Effects ratione personae .....................................................................................45 - 3 - CDL-AD(2010)039rev III.3. EFFECTS RATIONE TEMPORIS ...............................................................................50 III.3.1. Ex tunc or ex nunc invalidation of an act..........................................................50 III.3.2. Attenuation of the invalidations and their temporal effects ...............................51 III.4. EFFECTS RATIONE MATERIAE : REPARATION AND DAMAGES .....................................52 PARTIAL CONCLUSIONS OF CHAPTER III..............................................................53 IV. OTHER QUESTIONS ..............................................................................................54 IV.1. DELIMITATION OF JURISDICTION BETWEEN CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS AND ORDINARY COURTS ..............................................................................................................54 IV.1.1. Review competences ......................................................................................55 IV.1.2. Binding force of the judgment’s reasoning.......................................................55 IV.1.3. Obligation to put a preliminary request ............................................................56 IV.2. PROBLEM OF DIRECT INDIVIDUAL ACCESS AND OVERBURDENING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT ................................................................................................................58 IV.2.1. Writs of certiorari and selection of cases by constitutional courts ....................58 IV.2.2. Organisation of the constitutional court............................................................59 PARTIAL CONCLUSIONS OF CHAPTER IV .............................................................60 TABLES........................................................................................................................61 1.1.1 Table 1 summarising the types of access...............................................61 1.1.2 Table: Time-limits for applications ..........................................................63 1.1.3 Table: Obligation to be legally represented ............................................66 1.1.4 Table: Exhaustion of remedies and exceptions ......................................68 1.1.5 Table: Preliminary ruling procedures ......................................................72 1.1.6 Table: Joinder of similar cases ...............................................................75 1.1.7 Table: Adversary systems ......................................................................76 1.1.8 Table: Public proceedings and exceptions .............................................80 1.1.9 Table: Oral proceedings and exceptions ................................................83 1.1.10 Table: Suspension of implementation.....................................................85 1.1.11 Table: Stay of ordinary proceedings .......................................................89 1.1.12 Table: Injunctive measures.....................................................................91 1.1.13 Table: Extension of norms under review.................................................92 1.1.14 Table: Erga omnes effect .......................................................................93 1.1.15 Table: Confirmation of constitutionality.................................................100 1.1.16 Table: Ex nunc or ex tunc effect of the Constitutional Court’s decision.102 1.1.17 Table: Capacity of constitutional courts to attribute damages ...............110 1.1.18 Table: Authorisation to put a preliminary request..................................111 CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL BASES FOR INDIRECT AND DIRECT INDIVIDUAL ACCESS ......115 1.1.19 Table: Indirect access: Ombudsperson ................................................115 1.1.20 Table: Indirect individual access: Preliminary requests.........................124 1.1.21 Table: Direct individual access: Constitutional and legal bases ............133 CDL-AD(2010)039 - 4 - Executive Summary 1. Among the member and observer states of the Venice Commission, very few countries do not provide at least some type of individual access to question the constitutionality of a norm or individual act. These are Algeria, Morocco, the Netherlands and Tunisia (France can no longer be classified in this group after its recent constitutional reform). It is possible to distinguish between direct individual access, in which individuals are given the possibility to challenge the constitutionality of a given norm or act directly and indirect individual access, in which the constitutionality can be challenged only through state bodies. Many countries have a mixed system, both with direct means
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Spotlight on Parliaments in Europe
    Spotlight on Parliaments in Europe Issued by the EP Directorate for Relations with National Parliaments N° 13 - November 2016 Quality of legislation stemming from the EU On 19 September 2016, the Italian Senate submitted a request to the ECPRD network concerning the quality of legislation stemming from the EU. This request was an opportunity for National Parliaments to exchange best practices on how to ensure the quality of legislation with specific regard to transposition, implementation and enforcement of EU law. From the 21 answers provided by National Parliaments it is clear that transposition and implementation of EU Law is highly unlikely to require special attention. While almost all of them are using legislative guidelines and procedures for guaranteeing high standard of general law-making, only a few have felt the need to establish special mechanisms to ensure the quality of legislation stemming from the EU. The use of legislative guidelines and procedures; the main way to ensure the quality of legislation stemming from the EU. The use of legislative guidelines and procedures appears to be the most common way for National Parliaments to ensure the quality of legislation, also the legislation stemming from the EU. It allows for good linguistic coherence in the national languages while enhancing the standardization of the law. For example, in the case of Austria, the Federal Chancellery has published specific “Legistische Richtlinien”. In Spain, the instrument used is the Regulation Guidelines adopted in the Agreement of the Council of Ministers of 22 July 2005. Both Italian Chambers use Joint Guidelines on drafting of national legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • Four Models of the Criminal Process Kent Roach
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 89 Article 5 Issue 2 Winter Winter 1999 Four Models of the Criminal Process Kent Roach Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Kent Roach, Four Models of the Criminal Process, 89 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 671 (1998-1999) This Criminology is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/99/8902-0671 THM JOURNAL OF QMINAL LAW& CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 89, No. 2 Copyright 0 1999 by Northwestem University. School of Law Psisd in USA. CRIMINOLOGY FOUR MODELS OF THE CRIMINAL PROCESS KENT ROACH* I. INTRODUCTION Ever since Herbert Packer published "Two Models of the Criminal Process" in 1964, much thinking about criminal justice has been influenced by the construction of models. Models pro- vide a useful way to cope with the complexity of the criminal pro- cess. They allow details to be simplified and common themes and trends to be highlighted. "As in the physical and social sciences, [models present] a hypothetical but coherent scheme for testing the evidence" produced by decisions made by thousands of actors in the criminal process every day.2 Unlike the sciences, however, it is not possible or desirable to reduce the discretionary and hu- manistic systems of criminal justice to a single truth.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court
    Case 1:12-cv-00069-JB-KBM Document 135 Filed 11/18/14 Page 1 of 106 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO JARITA MESA LIVESTOCK GRAZING ASSOCIATION; ALAMOSA LIVESTOCK GRAZING ASSOCIATION; SEBEDEO CHACON; THOMAS GRIEGO; DONALD GRIEGO; MICHAEL PENA; JUAN GIRON; JOE GURULE, JR.; FERNANDO GURULE; DIEGO JARAMILLO; LORENZO JARAMILLO; GABRIEL ALDAZ; ARTURO RODARTE; JEFFREY CHACON; GLORIA VALDEZ; JERRY VASQUEZ; CARLOS ORTEGA; LEON ORTEGA; HORACIO MARTINEZ; RONALD MARTINEZ; STEVE CHAVEZ; VANGIE CHAVEZ; ALFONSO CHACON; DANIEL RAEL; JOHN VALDEZ and BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF RIO ARRIBA, Plaintiffs, vs. No. CIV 12-0069 JB/KBM UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE and DIANA TRUJILLO, in her official and individual capacities, Defendants. Case 1:12-cv-00069-JB-KBM Document 135 Filed 11/18/14 Page 2 of 106 AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION1 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Federal Defendants‟ Motion to Dismiss Count 1 for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies, filed February 18, 2013 (Doc. 55)(“MTD”). The Court held a hearing on July 26, 2013. The primary issue is whether the Court should dismiss the Plaintiffs‟ retaliation claim under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Because the Plaintiffs never argued their First Amendment retaliation claim before Defendant United States Forest Service in the administrative proceedings, because a claim is not exempt from the administrative-exhaustion requirement merely because it is constitutional in nature, and because the administrative-exhaustion requirement is mandatory and thus not subject to judicial waiver, the Court will dismiss without prejudice the First Amendment retaliation claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 7 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhaustion of State Remedies Before Bringing Federal Habeas Corpus: a Reappraisal of U.S. Code Section
    Nebraska Law Review Volume 43 | Issue 1 Article 7 1963 Exhaustion of State Remedies before Bringing Federal Habeas Corpus: A Reappraisal of U.S. Code Section Merritt aJ mes University of Nebraska College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr Recommended Citation Merritt aJ mes, Exhaustion of State Remedies before Bringing Federal Habeas Corpus: A Reappraisal of U.S. Code Section, 43 Neb. L. Rev. 120 (1964) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol43/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. NEBRASKA LAW REVIEW VOL. 43, NO. 1 EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES BEFORE BRINGING FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS: A REAPPRAISAL OF U.S. CODE SECTION 2254 I. INTRODUCTION There are many instances in which a state's prisoner, after being denied his liberty for years, has subsequently, upon issuance of federal writ of habeas corpus, either been proven innocent or adjudged entitled to a new trial upon grounds that he was denied some constitutional right during the process of his state court trial.' In some of these cases it has been clear from the very beginning that if the allegations of the writ were proven, the de- tention was unconstitutional. Yet the prisoner is still forced to endure years of confinement while exhausting state remedies before 2 federal habeas corpus is available to him.
    [Show full text]
  • Is an Adversarial Legal System Well Suited For
    could probably chalk up the results to any number of imperfections—dispro- portionate access to evidence, disparate On Reconsideration advocacy skills, a misunderstood ques- tion, a mis-phrased answer, a key docu- ment that somehow disappeared and nev- IS AN ADVERSARIAL er became part of the evidence, a witness whose distorted memory was persuasively LEGAL SYSTEM WELL communicated and unjustifiably believed, an ambiguous email that created a false SUITED FOR DELIVERING impression, a litigation budget that sank under the weight of crippling discovery, JUSTICE? an arbitrary evidentiary ruling, a confus- ing jury instruction, an unfortunate gap between what someone said and what that person meant, an adjudicator whose hid- KENNETH R. BERMAN den biases led to an erroneous credibility Kenneth R. Berman is a partner at Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP in Boston and the author of Reinventing assessment or a mistaken legal ruling. The Witness Preparation: Unlocking the Secrets to Testimonial Success (ABA 2018). list goes on and on. In an adversarial system, the search for truth is a battle of narratives. The side with the more sympathetic, more plausible story usually wins, even if the truth belongs elsewhere. Generally, our “On Reconsideration.” That’s the banner of narratives, each of which is then put adversary system favors the better story, this new column. Here, we’ll test our as- through intensive questioning and critiqu- not necessarily the truer one. Emotion sumptions about how justice is dispensed, ing by the opposing lawyer, who fires ver- prevailing over logic. how truth is proven, how we litigators are bal cannonballs at everything attackable.
    [Show full text]
  • Oireachtas Digest on Europe Week 29: 19 to 25 July 2021 | Ref: 28-21
    Oireachtas Digest on Europe Week 29: 19 to 25 July 2021 | Ref: 28-21 Spotlight Last Week European Parliament: EU’s capacity to anticipate and respond to health crises. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) adopted a draft negotiating position for a new regulation on tackling serious cross-border health threats. The text will be voted by all MEPs during September’s plenary session. Independent Ethics Body: In a report endorsed by the Constitutional Affairs Committee on Wednesday, MEPs set out their views on the establishment of an independent EU Ethics Body. New EU strategy for China In a report adopted on Thursday, the Foreign Affairs Committee outlines six pillars on which the EU should build a new strategy to deal with China: cooperation on global challenges, engagement on international norms and human rights, identifying risks and vulnerabilities, building partnerships with like-minded partners, fostering strategic autonomy and defending European interests and values. Kremlin politics: In a new assessment of the direction of EU-Russia political relations, MEPs make clear the Parliament distinguishes between the Russian people and President Vladimir Putin’s regime. The latter is, they say, a “stagnating authoritarian kleptocracy led by a president-for-life surrounded by a circle of oligarchs”. Slovenian Presidency.Slovenia holds the Presidency of the Council until the end of 2021. During the week, Ministers outlined the priorities of the Slovenian Presidency of the Council of the EU to parliamentary committees, in a series of meetings. Data governance: On Thursday, the Industry, Research and Energy Committee adopted its position on the EU Data Governance Act (DGA), aimed at increasing trust in data sharing, create new EU rules on neutrality of data marketplaces and facilitate the reuse of certain data held by the public sector e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • The Slovenian Parliament and EU Affairs Sabina Kajnč Lange, European Institute of Public Administration
    OPAL Country Reports The Slovenian Parliament and EU Affairs Sabina Kajnč Lange, European Institute of Public Administration To cite this report: S. Kajnč Lange (2012), OPAL Country Reports: The Slovenian Parliament and EU Affairs, weblink September 2012 OPAL Country Report on the Slovenian Parliament, September 2012 OPAL Country Report on the Slovenian Parliament1 Sabina Lange, European Institute of Public Administration Acronyms: CFP Odbor za zunanjo politiko - Committee for foreign policy EAC Odbor za zadeve Evropske unije, Committee on EU Affairs (CEUA) LRNAG Zakon o odnosih med državnim zborom in vlado v zadevah Evropske unije (Law on Relations between the National Assembly and the Government in matters of the European Union) SI Slovenia RoP Rules of Procedure RoPNA Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly 1. General Position of Parliament in the Constitutional Balance of the Member State: Constitutional and institutional factors This section looks at the role of Parliament in the political system, to help us understand the relative power position of the legislature. What is the type of government in the political system of your member state? 1.1 (i.e. parliamentary or semi-presidential) Parliamentary system 1.2 Is it a uni- or bicameral Parliament? If bicameral, is one house dominant or are both equally strong? Please briefly explain. Bicameral, with Lower house (državni zbor; national assembly, Staatsversammlung) very dominant over the Upper house (državni svet; national council; Staatsrat). Upper house combines interest and regional representation. 1.3 Is the state federal, decentralized or unitary? If applicable, is it a form of assymetrical federalism? Unitary 1.4 Briefly describe the electoral system, if applicable, for each chamber.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States ______
    NO. 19-__ In the Supreme Court of the United States ________________ COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Petitioner, v. MICHEAL BACA, POLLY BACA, AND ROBERT NEMANICH, Respondents. ________________ On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ________________ PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ________________ PHILIP J. WEISER GRANT T. SULLIVAN Attorney General Assistant Solicitor General ERIC R. OLSON LEEANN MORRILL Solicitor General First Assistant Attorney Counsel of Record General Office of the Colorado Attorney General 1300 Broadway, 10th Floor Denver, Colorado 80203 [email protected] (720) 508-6000 Counsel for Petitioner QUESTIONS PRESENTED Like most States, Colorado requires its presidential electors to follow the will of its voters when casting their Electoral College ballots for President. In the 2016 Electoral College, one of Colorado’s electors violated Colorado law by attempting to cast his presidential ballot for a candidate other than the one he pledged to vote for. Colorado removed him as an elector, declined to accept his ballot, and replaced him with an alternate elector who properly cast her ballot for the winner of the State’s popular vote, consistent with Colorado law. The removed elector later sued Colorado for nominal damages. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a presidential elector who is prevented by their appointing State from casting an Electoral College ballot that violates state law lacks standing to sue their appointing State because they hold no constitutionally protected right to exercise discretion. 2. Does Article II or the Twelfth Amendment forbid a State from requiring its presidential electors to follow the State’s popular vote when casting their Electoral College ballots.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure
    TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE Table of Contents SECTION ONE. (c) Where to File. GENERAL PROVISIONS (d) Order of the Court. Rule 1. Scope of Rules; Local Rules of Courts of Rule 5. Fees in Civil Cases Appeals Rule 6. Representation by Counsel 1.1. Scope. 6.1. Lead Counsel 1.2. Local Rules (a) For Appellant. (a) Promulgation. (b) For a Party Other Than Appellant. (b) Copies. (c) How to Designate. (c) Party's Noncompliance. 6.2. Appearance of Other Attorneys Rule 2. Suspension of Rules 6.3. To Whom Communications Sent Rule 3. Definitions; Uniform Terminology 6.4. Nonrepresentation Notice 3.1. Definitions (a) In General. (b) Appointed Counsel. 3.2. Uniform Terminology in Criminal Cases 6.5. Withdrawal (a) Contents of Motion. Rule 4. Time and Notice Provisions (b) Delivery to Party. (c) If Motion Granted. 4.1. Computing Time (d) Exception for Substitution of (a) In General. Counsel. (b) Clerk's Office Closed or Inaccessible. 6.6. Agreements of Parties or Counsel 4.2. No Notice of Trial Court’s Judgment Rule 7. Substituting Parties in Civil Case (a) Additional Time to File Documents. 7.1. Parties Who Are Not Public Officers (1) In general. (a) Death of a Party. (2) Exception for restricted appeal. (1) Civil Cases. (b) Procedure to Gain Additional Time. (2) Criminal Cases. (c) The Court’s Order. (b) Substitution for Other Reasons. 4.3. Periods Affected by Modified 7.2. Public Officers Judgment in Civil Case (a) Automatic Substitution of Officer. (a) During Plenary-Power Period. (b) Abatement. (b) After Plenary Power Expires.
    [Show full text]
  • Unpacking the Mexican Federal Judiciary: an Inner Look at the Ethos of the Judicial Branch
    Esta revista forma parte del acervo de la Biblioteca Jurídica Virtual del Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas de la UNAM http://www.juridicas.unam.mx/ https://biblio.juridicas.unam.mx/bjv https://revistas.juridicas.unam.mx/ DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/iij.24485306e.2018.1.12511 exican M Review aw New Series L V O L U M E XI Number 1 UNPACKING THE MEXICAN FEDERAL JUDICIARY: AN INNER LOOK AT THE ETHOS OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH Gabriel FERREYRA* ABSTRACT: Based on 45 interviews conducted in 6 different jurisdictions in Mexico, this article presents a close examination of the distinctive attributes and practices that characterize the Mexican Federal Judiciary (Poder Judicial Fed- eral). Interviewees included typists, clerks and court clerks, judges, and justices, as well as scholars and experts with an in-depth knowledge of this institution. From an insider perspective, the article sheds light on idiosyncrasies, customs, and orga- nizational patterns that are not well known outside the MFJ, such as its strong hierarchical structure, the nature of the work done, employee salaries, the practices of legalism, the risks of drug-related trials, and structural gender inequalities. It also discusses phenomena like influence peddling, cronyism, and nepotism, all of which are widely practiced within the MFJ but kept undisclosed. These practices do not necessarily have a negative connotation within the federal judiciary because they have become normalized due to their widespread use. In fact, the notion of corruption is somehow ambiguous for many judicial employees. Despite all this, the MFJ has become a more professionalized branch where the vast majority of employees performed their job competently and efficiently.
    [Show full text]
  • A Report on the California Appellate System J
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 45 | Issue 3 Article 2 1-1994 A Report on the California Appellate System J. Clark Kelso Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation J. Clark Kelso, A Report on the California Appellate System, 45 Hastings L.J. 433 (1994). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol45/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Report on the California Appellate Systemt by J. CLARK KELSO* Introduction Although the right to appeal is not recognized as one of our fun- damental rights of due process or equal protection, the ability to ap- peal an adverse decision would nevertheless appear to be one of the most cherished indicia of civilized government.' We learn at a very early age that one way to avoid having our toys taken away by an older sibling or playmate is to protest this unfair treatment to the nearest authority figure-usually a parent. And if relief is not granted by one parent, we seek help from the other parent. The underlying sentiment that there is (or must be) a higher au- thority which may be consulted to correct injustice has been ingrained in formal, governmental dispute-resolution systems throughout re- corded history. The right of appeal has been a component of govern- f The first draft of this Article was sent out to more than 125 reviewers, including all appellate judges in California.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Annual Convention Materials
    REDRAFTING KENTUCKY'S APPELLATE RULES: A ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION CLE Credit: 1.5 Friday, June 21, 2013 10:10 a.m. - 11:25 p.m. Combs-Chandler Room Galt House Hotel Louisville, Kentucky A NOTE CONCERNING THE PROGRAM MATERIALS The materials included in this Kentucky Bar Association Continuing Legal Education handbook are intended to provide current and accurate information about the subject matter covered. No representation or warranty is made concerning the application of the legal or other principles discussed by the instructors to any specific fact situation, nor is any prediction made concerning how any particular judge or jury will interpret or apply such principles. The proper interpretation or application of the principles discussed is a matter for the considered judgment of the individual legal practitioner. The faculty and staff of this Kentucky Bar Association CLE program disclaim liability therefore. Attorneys using these materials, or information otherwise conveyed during the program, in dealing with a specific legal matter have a duty to research original and current sources of authority. Printed by: Kanet Pol & Bridges 7107 Shona Drive Cincinnati, Ohio 45237 Kentucky Bar Association TABLE OF CONTENTS The Presenters ................................................................................................................. i Draft Kentucky Appellate Rules of Procedure (KAP) ....................................................... 1 Proposed Structure of Appellate Rules ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]